<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_138254</id>
	<title>Why Won't Apple Sell Your iTunes LPs?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255441920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jfruhlinger writes <i>"Over the weekend there's been a bit of controversy over the fact that Apple has effectively shut indie artists out of the iTunes LP market by charging $10,000 in design fees.  But the real question is <a href="http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/80701/why-wont-apple-let-indies-create-their-own-itunes-lps">why Apple is in charge of designing the new iTunes LP at all</a>, since the format is based on open Web design technologies.  There's at least <a href="http://ilongplay.com/#listen-tryad">one iTunes LP already available outside the iTunes store</a>.  Why won't Apple sell it?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jfruhlinger writes " Over the weekend there 's been a bit of controversy over the fact that Apple has effectively shut indie artists out of the iTunes LP market by charging $ 10,000 in design fees .
But the real question is why Apple is in charge of designing the new iTunes LP at all , since the format is based on open Web design technologies .
There 's at least one iTunes LP already available outside the iTunes store .
Why wo n't Apple sell it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jfruhlinger writes "Over the weekend there's been a bit of controversy over the fact that Apple has effectively shut indie artists out of the iTunes LP market by charging $10,000 in design fees.
But the real question is why Apple is in charge of designing the new iTunes LP at all, since the format is based on open Web design technologies.
There's at least one iTunes LP already available outside the iTunes store.
Why won't Apple sell it?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732373</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>zenmonkeykstop</author>
	<datestamp>1255451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bad LP could bring down the cellphone network. Also, terrorism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bad LP could bring down the cellphone network .
Also , terrorism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bad LP could bring down the cellphone network.
Also, terrorism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731337</id>
	<title>the answer</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I might be able to answer that question if I knew what "LP" meant in this context; come on people, enough with the obscure acronyms, put what it means in the story summary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I might be able to answer that question if I knew what " LP " meant in this context ; come on people , enough with the obscure acronyms , put what it means in the story summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might be able to answer that question if I knew what "LP" meant in this context; come on people, enough with the obscure acronyms, put what it means in the story summary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29816115</id>
	<title>LP's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256040120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they still cant figure ou how to have itunes keep the tracks in the original order.</p><p>or stop mixing with other LP's or look in more than one place to get the name right.</p><p>or stop you from having to hit the new button if it dropped in the default music folder.</p><p>Or make you sign up for crap your not going to buy just to get album covers for othe aplications like screen saver.</p><p>Not that it can get most of them anyway.</p><p>Ok i will stop.</p><p>Some fan boy is doing the tuna.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they still cant figure ou how to have itunes keep the tracks in the original order.or stop mixing with other LP 's or look in more than one place to get the name right.or stop you from having to hit the new button if it dropped in the default music folder.Or make you sign up for crap your not going to buy just to get album covers for othe aplications like screen saver.Not that it can get most of them anyway.Ok i will stop.Some fan boy is doing the tuna .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they still cant figure ou how to have itunes keep the tracks in the original order.or stop mixing with other LP's or look in more than one place to get the name right.or stop you from having to hit the new button if it dropped in the default music folder.Or make you sign up for crap your not going to buy just to get album covers for othe aplications like screen saver.Not that it can get most of them anyway.Ok i will stop.Some fan boy is doing the tuna.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The LP is part of the move toward providing a more complete product back like they did with CDs, cassettes, and vinyl. With those things, you typically got extra stuff, like elaborate cover and inside art, and song lyrics, and with CDs there could be a data track with videos and other stuff. These are things that have gone by the wayside with digital downloads. Now that we are reaching the point where CD's are becoming a thing of the past for a much larger number of people, there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras. The digital LP is a focus to get those things back, so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The LP is part of the move toward providing a more complete product back like they did with CDs , cassettes , and vinyl .
With those things , you typically got extra stuff , like elaborate cover and inside art , and song lyrics , and with CDs there could be a data track with videos and other stuff .
These are things that have gone by the wayside with digital downloads .
Now that we are reaching the point where CD 's are becoming a thing of the past for a much larger number of people , there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras .
The digital LP is a focus to get those things back , so you can have all your extras for the complete experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LP is part of the move toward providing a more complete product back like they did with CDs, cassettes, and vinyl.
With those things, you typically got extra stuff, like elaborate cover and inside art, and song lyrics, and with CDs there could be a data track with videos and other stuff.
These are things that have gone by the wayside with digital downloads.
Now that we are reaching the point where CD's are becoming a thing of the past for a much larger number of people, there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras.
The digital LP is a focus to get those things back, so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733839</id>
	<title>Because...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1255457760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because you don't have enough money and they don't have to.  What part of "it's Apple's party" don't these idiots understand!
I'm tired of Apple and basically everybody getting criticized for not doing something that they have every right not to do.  Just because you want it and your attention span is about 3 seconds shorter than a fifty yard dash doesn't mean you get instant gratification!  Buck up ask for what you want and stop whining because they price the startup fee out of your ball park.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't have enough money and they do n't have to .
What part of " it 's Apple 's party " do n't these idiots understand !
I 'm tired of Apple and basically everybody getting criticized for not doing something that they have every right not to do .
Just because you want it and your attention span is about 3 seconds shorter than a fifty yard dash does n't mean you get instant gratification !
Buck up ask for what you want and stop whining because they price the startup fee out of your ball park .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't have enough money and they don't have to.
What part of "it's Apple's party" don't these idiots understand!
I'm tired of Apple and basically everybody getting criticized for not doing something that they have every right not to do.
Just because you want it and your attention span is about 3 seconds shorter than a fifty yard dash doesn't mean you get instant gratification!
Buck up ask for what you want and stop whining because they price the startup fee out of your ball park.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732363</id>
	<title>Another bogus story?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1255450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1 <p><div class="quote"><p>Apple said today that it does not charge a production fee for iTunes LP, after an independent label in the US claimed that it was being priced out of the market for the new format.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.musicweek.com/story.asp ? sectioncode = 1&amp;storycode = 1038901&amp;c = 1 Apple said today that it does not charge a production fee for iTunes LP , after an independent label in the US claimed that it was being priced out of the market for the new format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1 Apple said today that it does not charge a production fee for iTunes LP, after an independent label in the US claimed that it was being priced out of the market for the new format.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733211</id>
	<title>Update</title>
	<author>sammysheep</author>
	<datestamp>1255454940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, apparently, <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/13/itunes-lp-format-opening-up-to-additional-major-and-indie-record-labels/" title="macrumors.com" rel="nofollow">Apple will not charge</a> [macrumors.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , apparently , Apple will not charge [ macrumors.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, apparently, Apple will not charge [macrumors.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731513</id>
	<title>Apple is doing evil because they are evil.</title>
	<author>Crass Spektakel</author>
	<datestamp>1255447320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whats the deal?</p><p>Apple is doing evil because they are evil.</p><p>Face it, customer, you are just consumer cattle being milked. You gave Apple a defacto monopoly on online music, now you face the consequences.</p><p>Shut up, don't complain, buy moar, be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats the deal ? Apple is doing evil because they are evil.Face it , customer , you are just consumer cattle being milked .
You gave Apple a defacto monopoly on online music , now you face the consequences.Shut up , do n't complain , buy moar , be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats the deal?Apple is doing evil because they are evil.Face it, customer, you are just consumer cattle being milked.
You gave Apple a defacto monopoly on online music, now you face the consequences.Shut up, don't complain, buy moar, be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733865</id>
	<title>Story is bogus; either way I don't care</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1255457940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess I could've stopped after typing the subject... but anyway. I'm old enough where I still have LPs in a box somewhere. Thinking back to how often I looked at the liner notes, extras, etc. - the total for a given album varies between zero and one. I just wanted the music back then, and that's the case now.</p><p>I do find it funny (but not surprising; I've been on Slashdot too long to have high expectations) that people here are reacting with outrage, even though the story's been shown to be bogus - Apple says they're not charging a fee for this. Being the control freaks they usually are, they're working on opening it to everyone rather than just letting it out there: "We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own. There is no production fee charged by Apple."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess I could 've stopped after typing the subject... but anyway .
I 'm old enough where I still have LPs in a box somewhere .
Thinking back to how often I looked at the liner notes , extras , etc .
- the total for a given album varies between zero and one .
I just wanted the music back then , and that 's the case now.I do find it funny ( but not surprising ; I 've been on Slashdot too long to have high expectations ) that people here are reacting with outrage , even though the story 's been shown to be bogus - Apple says they 're not charging a fee for this .
Being the control freaks they usually are , they 're working on opening it to everyone rather than just letting it out there : " We 're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon , allowing both major and indie labels to create their own .
There is no production fee charged by Apple .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess I could've stopped after typing the subject... but anyway.
I'm old enough where I still have LPs in a box somewhere.
Thinking back to how often I looked at the liner notes, extras, etc.
- the total for a given album varies between zero and one.
I just wanted the music back then, and that's the case now.I do find it funny (but not surprising; I've been on Slashdot too long to have high expectations) that people here are reacting with outrage, even though the story's been shown to be bogus - Apple says they're not charging a fee for this.
Being the control freaks they usually are, they're working on opening it to everyone rather than just letting it out there: "We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own.
There is no production fee charged by Apple.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733197</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1255454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.</p></div><p>What? That wouldn't be a standard CD then.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.</p></div><p>Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.<br>As it is the studios are the main culprits in screwing up sound quality on the CD master itself. If labels would use the full potential of the technology that has been available to them I'd be happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.What ?
That would n't be a standard CD then.The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.As it is the studios are the main culprits in screwing up sound quality on the CD master itself .
If labels would use the full potential of the technology that has been available to them I 'd be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.What?
That wouldn't be a standard CD then.The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.As it is the studios are the main culprits in screwing up sound quality on the CD master itself.
If labels would use the full potential of the technology that has been available to them I'd be happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732787</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1255452900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's still the only way to get uncompressed music.  Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.</p></div><p>You can get uncompressed audio. You can also use lossless compression on audio files. You just have to not think that all downloads must be in the form of an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp3 file. CDs can die anytime. I welcome their death. Give me all my music in the latest and greatest lossless compression format and I will always be happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still the only way to get uncompressed music .
Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.You can get uncompressed audio .
You can also use lossless compression on audio files .
You just have to not think that all downloads must be in the form of an .mp3 file .
CDs can die anytime .
I welcome their death .
Give me all my music in the latest and greatest lossless compression format and I will always be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still the only way to get uncompressed music.
Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.You can get uncompressed audio.
You can also use lossless compression on audio files.
You just have to not think that all downloads must be in the form of an .mp3 file.
CDs can die anytime.
I welcome their death.
Give me all my music in the latest and greatest lossless compression format and I will always be happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731565</id>
	<title>Lousy Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LP really means "Lousy Product" -- Just like everything from crapple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LP really means " Lousy Product " -- Just like everything from crapple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LP really means "Lousy Product" -- Just like everything from crapple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29741601</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255462380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+5 Insightful!</p><p>I was thinking the same thing.  I'm still amazed that people actually <i>pay money</i> for pre-recorded music.  Live music, sure, I can understand that.  But albums?  Chumpsville.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 Insightful ! I was thinking the same thing .
I 'm still amazed that people actually pay money for pre-recorded music .
Live music , sure , I can understand that .
But albums ?
Chumpsville .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5 Insightful!I was thinking the same thing.
I'm still amazed that people actually pay money for pre-recorded music.
Live music, sure, I can understand that.
But albums?
Chumpsville.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731509</id>
	<title>I think most of you are missing...</title>
	<author>fostro1</author>
	<datestamp>1255447260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a big point of the article. I think record companies are being threatened by how easy it has gotten for unsigned artists to record their own music, and sell it on their own as well. Who needs to sign a big contract with a record company so they can steal all your sales $$ when you can do it all by yourself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a big point of the article .
I think record companies are being threatened by how easy it has gotten for unsigned artists to record their own music , and sell it on their own as well .
Who needs to sign a big contract with a record company so they can steal all your sales $ $ when you can do it all by yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a big point of the article.
I think record companies are being threatened by how easy it has gotten for unsigned artists to record their own music, and sell it on their own as well.
Who needs to sign a big contract with a record company so they can steal all your sales $$ when you can do it all by yourself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734647</id>
	<title>Less concerned about the $10k fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255461000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of interesting conjecture all over the place, but I wonder why we're not noticing this angle:</p><p>LPs are bonus content to go along with the album, such as photos and videos, and other DVD-extra-isms, bonus content that is only available through iTunes.</p><p>Couldn't this just be a new way of enforcing iTunes primacy over music ownership? They gave up DRM (for the most part) on the songs, but here's new content (that costs money) that's still locked into the iTunes app.</p><p>Sure, you can pirate your music, but if you want the liner notes and studio footage, you'll have to shell out through their legitimate channel, and watch it from within your iTunes window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of interesting conjecture all over the place , but I wonder why we 're not noticing this angle : LPs are bonus content to go along with the album , such as photos and videos , and other DVD-extra-isms , bonus content that is only available through iTunes.Could n't this just be a new way of enforcing iTunes primacy over music ownership ?
They gave up DRM ( for the most part ) on the songs , but here 's new content ( that costs money ) that 's still locked into the iTunes app.Sure , you can pirate your music , but if you want the liner notes and studio footage , you 'll have to shell out through their legitimate channel , and watch it from within your iTunes window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of interesting conjecture all over the place, but I wonder why we're not noticing this angle:LPs are bonus content to go along with the album, such as photos and videos, and other DVD-extra-isms, bonus content that is only available through iTunes.Couldn't this just be a new way of enforcing iTunes primacy over music ownership?
They gave up DRM (for the most part) on the songs, but here's new content (that costs money) that's still locked into the iTunes app.Sure, you can pirate your music, but if you want the liner notes and studio footage, you'll have to shell out through their legitimate channel, and watch it from within your iTunes window.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731335</id>
	<title>Because they're idiots?</title>
	<author>IWantMoreSpamPlease</author>
	<datestamp>1255446300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just guessing here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just guessing here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just guessing here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732707</id>
	<title>Apple denies iTunes LP production fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.macworld.com/article/143272/2009/10/ituneslp\_fee.html?lsrc=rss\_main</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.macworld.com/article/143272/2009/10/ituneslp \ _fee.html ? lsrc = rss \ _main</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.macworld.com/article/143272/2009/10/ituneslp\_fee.html?lsrc=rss\_main</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29735515</id>
	<title>LP stands for...</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1255465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Loser Pays. Apparently pays about $10000 according to TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loser Pays .
Apparently pays about $ 10000 according to TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loser Pays.
Apparently pays about $10000 according to TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732007</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>JCCyC</author>
	<datestamp>1255449360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The LP is part of the move toward making you buy a bunch of songs you don't want like they did with CDs, cassettes, and vinyl.</p></div><p>FTFY.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The LP is part of the move toward making you buy a bunch of songs you do n't want like they did with CDs , cassettes , and vinyl.FTFY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The LP is part of the move toward making you buy a bunch of songs you don't want like they did with CDs, cassettes, and vinyl.FTFY.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731485</id>
	<title>It's a TEASER!!!</title>
	<author>GerardAtJob</author>
	<datestamp>1255447080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on guys... this isn't news at all... it's what I call a TEASER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on guys... this is n't news at all... it 's what I call a TEASER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on guys... this isn't news at all... it's what I call a TEASER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732469</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1255451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but it doesn't work (at least for me) because all that stuff you get is still in digital form.  You can't page through the lyrics, or hand it to your friend in the same room so he can look at the lyrics.  You still have to be huddled around this computer. Which nobody really wants to do in a group.  And if I was alone at my computer, I'd probably just google some new images/videos from their latest concert if I wanted to look at images, instead of looking at the same images/videos over and over again.  And lyrics are easy enough to come by.  With real programs like Amarok, it can bring in that stuff automatically, so it's not even an issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but it does n't work ( at least for me ) because all that stuff you get is still in digital form .
You ca n't page through the lyrics , or hand it to your friend in the same room so he can look at the lyrics .
You still have to be huddled around this computer .
Which nobody really wants to do in a group .
And if I was alone at my computer , I 'd probably just google some new images/videos from their latest concert if I wanted to look at images , instead of looking at the same images/videos over and over again .
And lyrics are easy enough to come by .
With real programs like Amarok , it can bring in that stuff automatically , so it 's not even an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but it doesn't work (at least for me) because all that stuff you get is still in digital form.
You can't page through the lyrics, or hand it to your friend in the same room so he can look at the lyrics.
You still have to be huddled around this computer.
Which nobody really wants to do in a group.
And if I was alone at my computer, I'd probably just google some new images/videos from their latest concert if I wanted to look at images, instead of looking at the same images/videos over and over again.
And lyrics are easy enough to come by.
With real programs like Amarok, it can bring in that stuff automatically, so it's not even an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734613</id>
	<title>I'm beginning to understand this...</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1255460880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and to really 'get it'.</p><p>Many corporations interact with their customers as if they (the customer) are a resource.  In this scenario, the resource functions as the primary funding method for their operation.  Stockholders for older corporations and *capitalists for younger or startup corporations.</p><p>Rather than view the process as devising goods and/or services that are offered to customers in exchange for funding to both repay the financing of the design and manufacture as well as ongoing expenses, some corporations experience the entire continuum of design/build/sell/repeat as if corporations are the whole point - that the corporation is what makes this all work.</p><p>Well, it doesn't.  None of them do.</p><p>If we, the customers, chose to not buy certain types of products, the industries dependent on those products would fail.  The classic buggy whip industry example being a good analogy, and portable radios being a current one.  Hell, I do still have a little AM/FM radio, but it is now superceded by my Bluetooth headset adapter that includes an FM radio.  AM? Not worth it to me.  FM?  Well, I used to rely on it more, but streaming to my cell phone works.  I keep the AM/FM only because of disaster preparedness, and since batteries are finite, it will be a crank-up model.  But enough of that.  Portable radios as a market are pretty well shot.</p><p>And we do choose, though often we choose in response to stimuli - ads.</p><p>So when Apple decides to 'shun' independent labels in iTunes by charging them way too much money to be on the platform, they are choosing for us.  Just like the grocery store that never has Durkee brand fried onion rings in the can around Thanksgiving, but has plenty of their store brand.  Or automakers that no longer make much of a range of options available for their cars - you pretty much get one of 3 trim levels and option packages.  Want A/C and a standard transmission?  Hope they give you that option...  Want steel wheels and leather seats?  Sunroof and the smaller engine?</p><p>Apple has for a long, long time treated its customers as the resource that funds their intentions.  Apple users pretty much get what Apple wants to give them, as ANY corporation does.  But Apple has you captive - proprietary software, forced into proprietary hardware, with little real choice.  Their insanely great design and above-average execution save the day.  If iPods were built like most MP3 players, they would not be popular, battery issues aside.</p><p>So you get what you pay for, and you get what you choose.</p><p>Me?</p><p>I have a Toshiba Gigabeat S60 player, seriously flawed.  A T-Mobile G1 phone, also flawed.  That Motorola S705 is slamming, though.  I just scored a Lenovo X41 tablet PC cheap, used, and better than many a netbook on the market today (IMHO, YMMV, etc).  I'm pretty contrary.</p><p>But if I had to do it over, I would probably just get an iPod.  No, wait, I hate iTunes, and the hassle of fighting a DRM'd solution.  Windows Media Player is bad enough.  And iTunes doesn't rip at 320kB, anything less is just not good enough for me.  So I buy CDs and rip them to my taste.  I even re-eq them sometimes to make up for my other and preferred headset, the Backbeat 903.  And the G-1's weak player.</p><p>If you're just into buying it on daddy's credit card, plugging it in, giving up a modest amount of personal data, and paying as much for 10 songs as you would for the whole CD and avoiding having to skip over 3/4 of the songs cause they just suck, well iPod is for you.</p><p>Just don't feel too offended when I can't bear to hear your complaints about being taken advantage of by corporations.</p><p>ps- We do need to strip corporations of the individual rights they have been granted.  They are not people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and to really 'get it'.Many corporations interact with their customers as if they ( the customer ) are a resource .
In this scenario , the resource functions as the primary funding method for their operation .
Stockholders for older corporations and * capitalists for younger or startup corporations.Rather than view the process as devising goods and/or services that are offered to customers in exchange for funding to both repay the financing of the design and manufacture as well as ongoing expenses , some corporations experience the entire continuum of design/build/sell/repeat as if corporations are the whole point - that the corporation is what makes this all work.Well , it does n't .
None of them do.If we , the customers , chose to not buy certain types of products , the industries dependent on those products would fail .
The classic buggy whip industry example being a good analogy , and portable radios being a current one .
Hell , I do still have a little AM/FM radio , but it is now superceded by my Bluetooth headset adapter that includes an FM radio .
AM ? Not worth it to me .
FM ? Well , I used to rely on it more , but streaming to my cell phone works .
I keep the AM/FM only because of disaster preparedness , and since batteries are finite , it will be a crank-up model .
But enough of that .
Portable radios as a market are pretty well shot.And we do choose , though often we choose in response to stimuli - ads.So when Apple decides to 'shun ' independent labels in iTunes by charging them way too much money to be on the platform , they are choosing for us .
Just like the grocery store that never has Durkee brand fried onion rings in the can around Thanksgiving , but has plenty of their store brand .
Or automakers that no longer make much of a range of options available for their cars - you pretty much get one of 3 trim levels and option packages .
Want A/C and a standard transmission ?
Hope they give you that option... Want steel wheels and leather seats ?
Sunroof and the smaller engine ? Apple has for a long , long time treated its customers as the resource that funds their intentions .
Apple users pretty much get what Apple wants to give them , as ANY corporation does .
But Apple has you captive - proprietary software , forced into proprietary hardware , with little real choice .
Their insanely great design and above-average execution save the day .
If iPods were built like most MP3 players , they would not be popular , battery issues aside.So you get what you pay for , and you get what you choose.Me ? I have a Toshiba Gigabeat S60 player , seriously flawed .
A T-Mobile G1 phone , also flawed .
That Motorola S705 is slamming , though .
I just scored a Lenovo X41 tablet PC cheap , used , and better than many a netbook on the market today ( IMHO , YMMV , etc ) .
I 'm pretty contrary.But if I had to do it over , I would probably just get an iPod .
No , wait , I hate iTunes , and the hassle of fighting a DRM 'd solution .
Windows Media Player is bad enough .
And iTunes does n't rip at 320kB , anything less is just not good enough for me .
So I buy CDs and rip them to my taste .
I even re-eq them sometimes to make up for my other and preferred headset , the Backbeat 903 .
And the G-1 's weak player.If you 're just into buying it on daddy 's credit card , plugging it in , giving up a modest amount of personal data , and paying as much for 10 songs as you would for the whole CD and avoiding having to skip over 3/4 of the songs cause they just suck , well iPod is for you.Just do n't feel too offended when I ca n't bear to hear your complaints about being taken advantage of by corporations.ps- We do need to strip corporations of the individual rights they have been granted .
They are not people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and to really 'get it'.Many corporations interact with their customers as if they (the customer) are a resource.
In this scenario, the resource functions as the primary funding method for their operation.
Stockholders for older corporations and *capitalists for younger or startup corporations.Rather than view the process as devising goods and/or services that are offered to customers in exchange for funding to both repay the financing of the design and manufacture as well as ongoing expenses, some corporations experience the entire continuum of design/build/sell/repeat as if corporations are the whole point - that the corporation is what makes this all work.Well, it doesn't.
None of them do.If we, the customers, chose to not buy certain types of products, the industries dependent on those products would fail.
The classic buggy whip industry example being a good analogy, and portable radios being a current one.
Hell, I do still have a little AM/FM radio, but it is now superceded by my Bluetooth headset adapter that includes an FM radio.
AM? Not worth it to me.
FM?  Well, I used to rely on it more, but streaming to my cell phone works.
I keep the AM/FM only because of disaster preparedness, and since batteries are finite, it will be a crank-up model.
But enough of that.
Portable radios as a market are pretty well shot.And we do choose, though often we choose in response to stimuli - ads.So when Apple decides to 'shun' independent labels in iTunes by charging them way too much money to be on the platform, they are choosing for us.
Just like the grocery store that never has Durkee brand fried onion rings in the can around Thanksgiving, but has plenty of their store brand.
Or automakers that no longer make much of a range of options available for their cars - you pretty much get one of 3 trim levels and option packages.
Want A/C and a standard transmission?
Hope they give you that option...  Want steel wheels and leather seats?
Sunroof and the smaller engine?Apple has for a long, long time treated its customers as the resource that funds their intentions.
Apple users pretty much get what Apple wants to give them, as ANY corporation does.
But Apple has you captive - proprietary software, forced into proprietary hardware, with little real choice.
Their insanely great design and above-average execution save the day.
If iPods were built like most MP3 players, they would not be popular, battery issues aside.So you get what you pay for, and you get what you choose.Me?I have a Toshiba Gigabeat S60 player, seriously flawed.
A T-Mobile G1 phone, also flawed.
That Motorola S705 is slamming, though.
I just scored a Lenovo X41 tablet PC cheap, used, and better than many a netbook on the market today (IMHO, YMMV, etc).
I'm pretty contrary.But if I had to do it over, I would probably just get an iPod.
No, wait, I hate iTunes, and the hassle of fighting a DRM'd solution.
Windows Media Player is bad enough.
And iTunes doesn't rip at 320kB, anything less is just not good enough for me.
So I buy CDs and rip them to my taste.
I even re-eq them sometimes to make up for my other and preferred headset, the Backbeat 903.
And the G-1's weak player.If you're just into buying it on daddy's credit card, plugging it in, giving up a modest amount of personal data, and paying as much for 10 songs as you would for the whole CD and avoiding having to skip over 3/4 of the songs cause they just suck, well iPod is for you.Just don't feel too offended when I can't bear to hear your complaints about being taken advantage of by corporations.ps- We do need to strip corporations of the individual rights they have been granted.
They are not people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29740443</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's still the only way to get uncompressed music.  Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.  The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.hdtracks.com/" title="hdtracks.com" rel="nofollow">hdtracks.com</a> [hdtracks.com]<br><a href="http://www.musictoday.com/" title="musictoday.com" rel="nofollow">musictoday.com</a> [musictoday.com]</p><p>There are others if you look.</p><p>Also, try doing a proper double-blind comparison, not just side by side.  Can you really do better (statistically) than random guessing?  You might surprise yourself.  I know I did, and I can hear things that most people I know can't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's still the only way to get uncompressed music .
Some discs even have full surround sound encoding .
The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo .
hdtracks.com [ hdtracks.com ] musictoday.com [ musictoday.com ] There are others if you look.Also , try doing a proper double-blind comparison , not just side by side .
Can you really do better ( statistically ) than random guessing ?
You might surprise yourself .
I know I did , and I can hear things that most people I know ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's still the only way to get uncompressed music.
Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.
The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.
hdtracks.com [hdtracks.com]musictoday.com [musictoday.com]There are others if you look.Also, try doing a proper double-blind comparison, not just side by side.
Can you really do better (statistically) than random guessing?
You might surprise yourself.
I know I did, and I can hear things that most people I know can't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29742617</id>
	<title>LP acronym ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255519620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please do not use undefined acronyms.<br>What is the meaning of LP please ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do not use undefined acronyms.What is the meaning of LP please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please do not use undefined acronyms.What is the meaning of LP please ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731637</id>
	<title>Re:That's easy</title>
	<author>teg</author>
	<datestamp>1255447860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Also, what does the money get you? Does it just give you the ability to submit extra material? Or does it include things like increased exposure? If you get a more prominent spot, and thus sell more... it's no surprise that Apple would like to charge for that, just like brick and mortar stores. Another possibility is that they will roll it out gradually - and that early adopters just have to pay more.

</p><p>
Until the format it supported in other devices (apple tv, ipods etc), it looks pretty irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , what does the money get you ?
Does it just give you the ability to submit extra material ?
Or does it include things like increased exposure ?
If you get a more prominent spot , and thus sell more... it 's no surprise that Apple would like to charge for that , just like brick and mortar stores .
Another possibility is that they will roll it out gradually - and that early adopters just have to pay more .
Until the format it supported in other devices ( apple tv , ipods etc ) , it looks pretty irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Also, what does the money get you?
Does it just give you the ability to submit extra material?
Or does it include things like increased exposure?
If you get a more prominent spot, and thus sell more... it's no surprise that Apple would like to charge for that, just like brick and mortar stores.
Another possibility is that they will roll it out gradually - and that early adopters just have to pay more.
Until the format it supported in other devices (apple tv, ipods etc), it looks pretty irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734813</id>
	<title>ITunes LP in it's current form is a placeholder.</title>
	<author>Neurotic Nomad</author>
	<datestamp>1255461780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a feeling that, like 5th Generation iPod app downloads, this is just a small-scale test.

Apple loves beta testing in the marketplace.  When the Mighty Mouse came out, everyone just assumed it was arrogance that kept Apple from putting 2-physical buttons on it, but the actual reason was to perform a real-world test of multi-touch.  When Apple added multi-finger gestures to the trackpads everyone called it a gimmick, but it was actually an unrecognized real-world debugging of future iPhone gestures.

My take is that iTunes LP is a test of the format for the unnamed "iProd".

When iProd 1,0 comes out I expect the LP format to have a few additions to the bundle, but also for current bundles to be backward compatible. This would be consistent with Apple's M.O. I also expect iLife '10 to introduce the format to the masses.

If unofficial versions of iTLPs are made and traded, then that plays right into Apple's hand. If the Apple-designed bundle becomes standard, then that keeps any bundle with proprietary components from leveraging power over Apple's hardware designs. (cough, Adobe, cough, Microsoft, cough.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a feeling that , like 5th Generation iPod app downloads , this is just a small-scale test .
Apple loves beta testing in the marketplace .
When the Mighty Mouse came out , everyone just assumed it was arrogance that kept Apple from putting 2-physical buttons on it , but the actual reason was to perform a real-world test of multi-touch .
When Apple added multi-finger gestures to the trackpads everyone called it a gimmick , but it was actually an unrecognized real-world debugging of future iPhone gestures .
My take is that iTunes LP is a test of the format for the unnamed " iProd " .
When iProd 1,0 comes out I expect the LP format to have a few additions to the bundle , but also for current bundles to be backward compatible .
This would be consistent with Apple 's M.O .
I also expect iLife '10 to introduce the format to the masses .
If unofficial versions of iTLPs are made and traded , then that plays right into Apple 's hand .
If the Apple-designed bundle becomes standard , then that keeps any bundle with proprietary components from leveraging power over Apple 's hardware designs .
( cough , Adobe , cough , Microsoft , cough .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a feeling that, like 5th Generation iPod app downloads, this is just a small-scale test.
Apple loves beta testing in the marketplace.
When the Mighty Mouse came out, everyone just assumed it was arrogance that kept Apple from putting 2-physical buttons on it, but the actual reason was to perform a real-world test of multi-touch.
When Apple added multi-finger gestures to the trackpads everyone called it a gimmick, but it was actually an unrecognized real-world debugging of future iPhone gestures.
My take is that iTunes LP is a test of the format for the unnamed "iProd".
When iProd 1,0 comes out I expect the LP format to have a few additions to the bundle, but also for current bundles to be backward compatible.
This would be consistent with Apple's M.O.
I also expect iLife '10 to introduce the format to the masses.
If unofficial versions of iTLPs are made and traded, then that plays right into Apple's hand.
If the Apple-designed bundle becomes standard, then that keeps any bundle with proprietary components from leveraging power over Apple's hardware designs.
(cough, Adobe, cough, Microsoft, cough.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731613</id>
	<title>They don't want to be the next mp3.com</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1255447740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MP3 had a lot of crap, and by crap I don't mean "bad taste, but will sell reasonably well." It was the sort of stuff that is obscure because even with wide exposure it wouldn't get many fans.</p><p>My guess is that Apple wants to discourage said bands from participating so that most of the stuff that gets on there is of decent quality by serious artists not some fly-by-night garage band that cobbled together a CD using an Audacity tutorial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MP3 had a lot of crap , and by crap I do n't mean " bad taste , but will sell reasonably well .
" It was the sort of stuff that is obscure because even with wide exposure it would n't get many fans.My guess is that Apple wants to discourage said bands from participating so that most of the stuff that gets on there is of decent quality by serious artists not some fly-by-night garage band that cobbled together a CD using an Audacity tutorial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MP3 had a lot of crap, and by crap I don't mean "bad taste, but will sell reasonably well.
" It was the sort of stuff that is obscure because even with wide exposure it wouldn't get many fans.My guess is that Apple wants to discourage said bands from participating so that most of the stuff that gets on there is of decent quality by serious artists not some fly-by-night garage band that cobbled together a CD using an Audacity tutorial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29742349</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>sjogro</author>
	<datestamp>1255515960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>:lol: ive got crumbs all over my keyboard maaaan</htmltext>
<tokenext>: lol : ive got crumbs all over my keyboard maaaan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:lol: ive got crumbs all over my keyboard maaaan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731703</id>
	<title>Apple says there is no $10,000 charge</title>
	<author>chrisgeleven</author>
	<datestamp>1255448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1" title="musicweek.com">http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1</a> [musicweek.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>However, an iTunes spokesman says the fee is fiction. &ldquo;There is no production fee charged by Apple,&rdquo; he says. "We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own.&rdquo;</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.musicweek.com/story.asp ? sectioncode = 1&amp;storycode = 1038901&amp;c = 1 [ musicweek.com ] However , an iTunes spokesman says the fee is fiction .
   There is no production fee charged by Apple ,    he says .
" We 're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon , allowing both major and indie labels to create their own.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1 [musicweek.com] However, an iTunes spokesman says the fee is fiction.
“There is no production fee charged by Apple,” he says.
"We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own.”
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255448340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Now that we are reaching the point where CD's are becoming a thing of the past for a much larger number of people</p><p>I hope CDs don't die.</p><p>It's still the only way to get uncompressed music.  Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.  The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Now that we are reaching the point where CD 's are becoming a thing of the past for a much larger number of peopleI hope CDs do n't die.It 's still the only way to get uncompressed music .
Some discs even have full surround sound encoding .
The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Now that we are reaching the point where CD's are becoming a thing of the past for a much larger number of peopleI hope CDs don't die.It's still the only way to get uncompressed music.
Some discs even have full surround sound encoding.
The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239</id>
	<title>LP?</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1255445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't use iTunes so I must be missing something.  Do they sell Long Play records on iTunes or does LP stand for something else?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use iTunes so I must be missing something .
Do they sell Long Play records on iTunes or does LP stand for something else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use iTunes so I must be missing something.
Do they sell Long Play records on iTunes or does LP stand for something else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736169</id>
	<title>Re:Can anyone think of a reason?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1255424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one at Apple is deluded, and this wasn't "pushed on Apple" since the story is pure fiction: Apple does not charge a $10k design fee as a barrier to entry.</p><p><a href="http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1" title="musicweek.com">http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1</a> [musicweek.com]</p><p>It seems someone had a beef with iTunes and decided to make something up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one at Apple is deluded , and this was n't " pushed on Apple " since the story is pure fiction : Apple does not charge a $ 10k design fee as a barrier to entry.http : //www.musicweek.com/story.asp ? sectioncode = 1&amp;storycode = 1038901&amp;c = 1 [ musicweek.com ] It seems someone had a beef with iTunes and decided to make something up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one at Apple is deluded, and this wasn't "pushed on Apple" since the story is pure fiction: Apple does not charge a $10k design fee as a barrier to entry.http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&amp;storycode=1038901&amp;c=1 [musicweek.com]It seems someone had a beef with iTunes and decided to make something up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29741491</id>
	<title>Same reason they won't sell your eBook: not ready</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1255460520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iTunes is not yet ready to sell your iTunes LP or your fucking eBook. That is all. They don't have the infrastructure yet.</p><p>If for some reason iTunes wanted to make any part of their content proprietary, why did they delay opening the store for a year to use ISO MPEG-4 instead of Apple QuickTime? Why is iTunes LP made out of HTML5 instead of Cocoa if they want to make it proprietary?</p><p>I know there is a strong urge among some people to bash Apple at every opportunity, but truly: use your fucking heads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes is not yet ready to sell your iTunes LP or your fucking eBook .
That is all .
They do n't have the infrastructure yet.If for some reason iTunes wanted to make any part of their content proprietary , why did they delay opening the store for a year to use ISO MPEG-4 instead of Apple QuickTime ?
Why is iTunes LP made out of HTML5 instead of Cocoa if they want to make it proprietary ? I know there is a strong urge among some people to bash Apple at every opportunity , but truly : use your fucking heads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes is not yet ready to sell your iTunes LP or your fucking eBook.
That is all.
They don't have the infrastructure yet.If for some reason iTunes wanted to make any part of their content proprietary, why did they delay opening the store for a year to use ISO MPEG-4 instead of Apple QuickTime?
Why is iTunes LP made out of HTML5 instead of Cocoa if they want to make it proprietary?I know there is a strong urge among some people to bash Apple at every opportunity, but truly: use your fucking heads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732315</id>
	<title>yuo fail it!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>violated. In the = 36400 FreeBSD reciprocating cycle; take a world's Gay Nigger be any fucking are just way over Fortunately, Linux pallid bodies and you nned to succeed who sell another the project is in so that their is wiped off and niggern?ess?  And Fear the reaper</htmltext>
<tokenext>violated .
In the = 36400 FreeBSD reciprocating cycle ; take a world 's Gay Nigger be any fucking are just way over Fortunately , Linux pallid bodies and you nned to succeed who sell another the project is in so that their is wiped off and niggern ? ess ?
And Fear the reaper</tokentext>
<sentencetext>violated.
In the = 36400 FreeBSD reciprocating cycle; take a world's Gay Nigger be any fucking are just way over Fortunately, Linux pallid bodies and you nned to succeed who sell another the project is in so that their is wiped off and niggern?ess?
And Fear the reaper</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732883</id>
	<title>Concert Footage?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1255453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Along with that, you get video content -- in most cases, live concert recordings</p></div><p>So, I'm going to assume that this is the same stuff we get on youtube?  Also I'm doubting if there are songs which are only available via the LP, then they probably won't be any good. Otherwise the radio stations would have crammed these into our skulls on a "repeat every 5 min" playlist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with that , you get video content -- in most cases , live concert recordingsSo , I 'm going to assume that this is the same stuff we get on youtube ?
Also I 'm doubting if there are songs which are only available via the LP , then they probably wo n't be any good .
Otherwise the radio stations would have crammed these into our skulls on a " repeat every 5 min " playlist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with that, you get video content -- in most cases, live concert recordingsSo, I'm going to assume that this is the same stuff we get on youtube?
Also I'm doubting if there are songs which are only available via the LP, then they probably won't be any good.
Otherwise the radio stations would have crammed these into our skulls on a "repeat every 5 min" playlist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29745037</id>
	<title>Wholesale Ladys  fashion handbags,DG shirts Cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255536360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you can</p><p>see more photos and price in our website which is</p><p>show in the photos<br>we have large brand new shoes,clothing,</p><p>handbag,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 300000\% best</p><p>quality with the amazing price. please look at the</p><p>pictures and the price of our product in our website, if</p><p>interested, please email me by</p><p>Http://www.tntshoes.com    or place the order directly</p><p>via our website please see below of the price list of</p><p>some products,</p><p>
&nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi friend , we are a prefession online store , you cansee more photos and price in our website which isshow in the photoswe have large brand new shoes,clothing,handbag,sunglasses,hats etc for sale , 300000 \ % bestquality with the amazing price .
please look at thepictures and the price of our product in our website , ifinterested , please email me byHttp : //www.tntshoes.com or place the order directlyvia our website please see below of the price list ofsome products ,   OUR WEBSITE :                                                           Http : //www.tntshoes.comYAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cnMSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you cansee more photos and price in our website which isshow in the photoswe have large brand new shoes,clothing,handbag,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 300000\% bestquality with the amazing price.
please look at thepictures and the price of our product in our website, ifinterested, please email me byHttp://www.tntshoes.com    or place the order directlyvia our website please see below of the price list ofsome products,
  OUR WEBSITE:
                                                          Http://www.tntshoes.comYAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cnMSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731319</id>
	<title>That's easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Apple is a big corporation primarly interested in making money. Getting $10000 in design fees is a handy way of making $10000 more then if they just let you put it up for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Apple is a big corporation primarly interested in making money .
Getting $ 10000 in design fees is a handy way of making $ 10000 more then if they just let you put it up for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Apple is a big corporation primarly interested in making money.
Getting $10000 in design fees is a handy way of making $10000 more then if they just let you put it up for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731715</id>
	<title>If it's just an itlp file and a bunch of m4as</title>
	<author>plazman30</author>
	<datestamp>1255448220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why couldn't you sell the m4a files on iTunes, and just make an itlp file available on your website.  DRM is gone now from iTunes.  There is nothing to stop you from doing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why could n't you sell the m4a files on iTunes , and just make an itlp file available on your website .
DRM is gone now from iTunes .
There is nothing to stop you from doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why couldn't you sell the m4a files on iTunes, and just make an itlp file available on your website.
DRM is gone now from iTunes.
There is nothing to stop you from doing that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734449</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1255460280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In any case, if the system has 5 speakers, then it probably isn't stereo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In any case , if the system has 5 speakers , then it probably is n't stereo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any case, if the system has 5 speakers, then it probably isn't stereo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736257</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1255425000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP?</p></div><p>You're skeptical, but it's premature to scoff now. To see how it all pans out we'll have to wait until spring, when Apple rolls out the digital double-LP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP ? You 're skeptical , but it 's premature to scoff now .
To see how it all pans out we 'll have to wait until spring , when Apple rolls out the digital double-LP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP?You're skeptical, but it's premature to scoff now.
To see how it all pans out we'll have to wait until spring, when Apple rolls out the digital double-LP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731659</id>
	<title>Market economics 101?</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1255447980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is Apple charging $10,000? Because they can (or at least, think they can). When they no longer can, they will reduce the price.</p><p>In the case of Apple, they are betting that the 'majors' are willing to pay $10,000 to have Apple setup "iTunes LPs" for them. The article asks why Apple "controls" iTunes LPs, when they are based on open standards. My guess is that the answer is that, sure, anyone could create an iTunes LP, but Apple controls iTunes, so you can't publish your third-party created LP on iTunes, right? Hey, thems the brakes. It's been said that "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one". Maybe the smaller labels just need to man up, and work together to establish a viable competitor.</p><p>I'm happy for Apple that they've been successful, but as for me, I like to see a competitive marketplace, so I try to throw some business to other comapanies, where I can find them. (Though I will occasionally buy one of the non-drm tracks from Apple).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Apple charging $ 10,000 ?
Because they can ( or at least , think they can ) .
When they no longer can , they will reduce the price.In the case of Apple , they are betting that the 'majors ' are willing to pay $ 10,000 to have Apple setup " iTunes LPs " for them .
The article asks why Apple " controls " iTunes LPs , when they are based on open standards .
My guess is that the answer is that , sure , anyone could create an iTunes LP , but Apple controls iTunes , so you ca n't publish your third-party created LP on iTunes , right ?
Hey , thems the brakes .
It 's been said that " Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one " .
Maybe the smaller labels just need to man up , and work together to establish a viable competitor.I 'm happy for Apple that they 've been successful , but as for me , I like to see a competitive marketplace , so I try to throw some business to other comapanies , where I can find them .
( Though I will occasionally buy one of the non-drm tracks from Apple ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Apple charging $10,000?
Because they can (or at least, think they can).
When they no longer can, they will reduce the price.In the case of Apple, they are betting that the 'majors' are willing to pay $10,000 to have Apple setup "iTunes LPs" for them.
The article asks why Apple "controls" iTunes LPs, when they are based on open standards.
My guess is that the answer is that, sure, anyone could create an iTunes LP, but Apple controls iTunes, so you can't publish your third-party created LP on iTunes, right?
Hey, thems the brakes.
It's been said that "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one".
Maybe the smaller labels just need to man up, and work together to establish a viable competitor.I'm happy for Apple that they've been successful, but as for me, I like to see a competitive marketplace, so I try to throw some business to other comapanies, where I can find them.
(Though I will occasionally buy one of the non-drm tracks from Apple).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733329</id>
	<title>Money grab</title>
	<author>Sun.Jedi</author>
	<datestamp>1255455480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care about the images/fluff. I don't watch the visualizations, I don't drool over cover art, I set my playlist and minimize the player (or stuff the mp3 player in my pocket). I don't buy movies to play the 'extra content' games on my CD/DVD/BRD player. I don't even really care for the bonus scene, director interveiw crap, either. This is just another example of big business telling me that more content = more value and how to buy/use a product so they can 'maximize profit'. Not that I criticize the effort, but I'd pay less to just have the songs which means I'd be an actual customer.</p><p>Rips are fine, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care about the images/fluff .
I do n't watch the visualizations , I do n't drool over cover art , I set my playlist and minimize the player ( or stuff the mp3 player in my pocket ) .
I do n't buy movies to play the 'extra content ' games on my CD/DVD/BRD player .
I do n't even really care for the bonus scene , director interveiw crap , either .
This is just another example of big business telling me that more content = more value and how to buy/use a product so they can 'maximize profit' .
Not that I criticize the effort , but I 'd pay less to just have the songs which means I 'd be an actual customer.Rips are fine , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care about the images/fluff.
I don't watch the visualizations, I don't drool over cover art, I set my playlist and minimize the player (or stuff the mp3 player in my pocket).
I don't buy movies to play the 'extra content' games on my CD/DVD/BRD player.
I don't even really care for the bonus scene, director interveiw crap, either.
This is just another example of big business telling me that more content = more value and how to buy/use a product so they can 'maximize profit'.
Not that I criticize the effort, but I'd pay less to just have the songs which means I'd be an actual customer.Rips are fine, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731435</id>
	<title>WRONG WRONG WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your all off the mark,</p><p>1) Apple is the Music Industry, it may not appear so but they are like it or not and in order<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to continue to that relationship as a retailer, they must abide, confirm, defer to<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; industry pressure, via their lawyers</p><p>2) The reason for the 10k extortion is to please the industry and prevent the unsigned<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; meaning "free from major label and industry contractual slavery" from making a stand<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; without them reaping or rather raping the artist. Why 10k, because the legal cabal that<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; controls the industry thought that would be enough to deter</p><p>Plain and simple, its about control as usual</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your all off the mark,1 ) Apple is the Music Industry , it may not appear so but they are like it or not and in order       to continue to that relationship as a retailer , they must abide , confirm , defer to       industry pressure , via their lawyers2 ) The reason for the 10k extortion is to please the industry and prevent the unsigned       meaning " free from major label and industry contractual slavery " from making a stand       without them reaping or rather raping the artist .
Why 10k , because the legal cabal that       controls the industry thought that would be enough to deterPlain and simple , its about control as usual</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your all off the mark,1) Apple is the Music Industry, it may not appear so but they are like it or not and in order
      to continue to that relationship as a retailer, they must abide, confirm, defer to
      industry pressure, via their lawyers2) The reason for the 10k extortion is to please the industry and prevent the unsigned
      meaning "free from major label and industry contractual slavery" from making a stand
      without them reaping or rather raping the artist.
Why 10k, because the legal cabal that
      controls the industry thought that would be enough to deterPlain and simple, its about control as usual</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733079</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1255454400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, wonderful (and yes, I already knew that). OK, so now I've got an album with 10 songs. Which song do I store all the art in?</p><p>And before you get to it, yes I know you can store them in their own separate files. The idea is to have a standard way of storing and dealing with everything, so that it is more universally supported</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , wonderful ( and yes , I already knew that ) .
OK , so now I 've got an album with 10 songs .
Which song do I store all the art in ? And before you get to it , yes I know you can store them in their own separate files .
The idea is to have a standard way of storing and dealing with everything , so that it is more universally supported</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, wonderful (and yes, I already knew that).
OK, so now I've got an album with 10 songs.
Which song do I store all the art in?And before you get to it, yes I know you can store them in their own separate files.
The idea is to have a standard way of storing and dealing with everything, so that it is more universally supported</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731369</id>
	<title>Why won't Apple sell it?</title>
	<author>Das Auge</author>
	<datestamp>1255446540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because, as they've shown time and time again, the big difference between them and Microsoft is the total amount of power wielded.  They've made it known that they're a competitor in the Industry of Evil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , as they 've shown time and time again , the big difference between them and Microsoft is the total amount of power wielded .
They 've made it known that they 're a competitor in the Industry of Evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, as they've shown time and time again, the big difference between them and Microsoft is the total amount of power wielded.
They've made it known that they're a competitor in the Industry of Evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733109</id>
	<title>If you think this is a rip off...</title>
	<author>qazwart</author>
	<datestamp>1255454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...then, don't buy LPs from Apple. That simple. You can still by stuff song-by-song.</p><p>Apple has two sets of customers. Those of us who buy stuff from iTunes and the content providers who provide the merchandise to iTunes. Apple has to balance out the two competing interests. Sorry if you don't like that.</p><p>The content providers never liked the song-by-song buying because people cherry pick. What use to be a $12.99 album sale is now only a $2.98 sale of three songs that everyone likes a lot. Even decent songs that people might have grown to like weren't selling because people bought for immediate gratification. The triple tier pricing wasn't helping.</p><p>To get people buying albums again, Apple and the recording industry came up with something that provides an extra benefit for buying an entire album. You get linear notes, extra songs, a few behind-the-scenes type of stuff, etc.</p><p>If you think it is now worth plucking down $12.99 for an "album", go for it! If not, then buy what you want song-by-song.</p><p>At least give Apple credit that the album standard is an open standard with no DRM. Anyone can sell "albums". Anyone can create an "album". (The $10,000 fee is a misunderstanding. When Apple came up with the Album concept, the record companies could produce their own, or have Apple do it for them. To the big studios, $10,000 is a bargain, and many took it. It allowed Apple to have Albums on sale from day one, and showed the potential of albums to everyone. The standard is open, and Apple will allow anyone to create albums.)</p><p>Whatever you think of iTunes, it showed the world how to actually be profitable selling on line content: Make the transaction easy, provide reasonable value, and give consumers what they want. Apparently, that was a revelation to the record companies. The iTunes store introduced the following concepts:</p><p>* Song-by-song pricing. The recording industry wanted to push bundles and subscriptions<br>* You own the song when you buy it. The recording industry wanted to charge both subscription and rent.<br>* Reasonable pricing: 99 cents/song was a shocker to the industry who wanted to charge $2.99.<br>* Easy shopping experience: The iTunes store showed everyone else how to setup an online store. Now, there are dozens of them.<br>* Actually using the song on multiple devices. Yes, there was originally copy protection, but as far as copy protection went, it was quite mild: You could download your music to your MP3 player, you could burn a CD of it, and you could share it with five different computers. Apple may have never liked the idea of DRM, but the recording industry would never have gotten on board if Apple didn't have any at all. But think of what the recording industry wanted to do: You want a CD, to play it on your computer, and your MP3 player? Well, that's three separate purchases. With iTunes, it was a single purchase.</p><p>These are all things that we now take for granted for any on-line store we visit.</p><p>If you don't like iPods, don't buy one. You can buy many other MP3 players and there are many online stores that are a bit cheaper than Apple, or have music you cannot find on the Apple store. These MP3 players work well with those stores.</p><p>If you like iPods and have an iPod, buying from the iTunes store is quick, easy, and if you think that's worth the 20 cent premium, then buy from iTunes.</p><p>It's that simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...then , do n't buy LPs from Apple .
That simple .
You can still by stuff song-by-song.Apple has two sets of customers .
Those of us who buy stuff from iTunes and the content providers who provide the merchandise to iTunes .
Apple has to balance out the two competing interests .
Sorry if you do n't like that.The content providers never liked the song-by-song buying because people cherry pick .
What use to be a $ 12.99 album sale is now only a $ 2.98 sale of three songs that everyone likes a lot .
Even decent songs that people might have grown to like were n't selling because people bought for immediate gratification .
The triple tier pricing was n't helping.To get people buying albums again , Apple and the recording industry came up with something that provides an extra benefit for buying an entire album .
You get linear notes , extra songs , a few behind-the-scenes type of stuff , etc.If you think it is now worth plucking down $ 12.99 for an " album " , go for it !
If not , then buy what you want song-by-song.At least give Apple credit that the album standard is an open standard with no DRM .
Anyone can sell " albums " .
Anyone can create an " album " .
( The $ 10,000 fee is a misunderstanding .
When Apple came up with the Album concept , the record companies could produce their own , or have Apple do it for them .
To the big studios , $ 10,000 is a bargain , and many took it .
It allowed Apple to have Albums on sale from day one , and showed the potential of albums to everyone .
The standard is open , and Apple will allow anyone to create albums .
) Whatever you think of iTunes , it showed the world how to actually be profitable selling on line content : Make the transaction easy , provide reasonable value , and give consumers what they want .
Apparently , that was a revelation to the record companies .
The iTunes store introduced the following concepts : * Song-by-song pricing .
The recording industry wanted to push bundles and subscriptions * You own the song when you buy it .
The recording industry wanted to charge both subscription and rent .
* Reasonable pricing : 99 cents/song was a shocker to the industry who wanted to charge $ 2.99 .
* Easy shopping experience : The iTunes store showed everyone else how to setup an online store .
Now , there are dozens of them .
* Actually using the song on multiple devices .
Yes , there was originally copy protection , but as far as copy protection went , it was quite mild : You could download your music to your MP3 player , you could burn a CD of it , and you could share it with five different computers .
Apple may have never liked the idea of DRM , but the recording industry would never have gotten on board if Apple did n't have any at all .
But think of what the recording industry wanted to do : You want a CD , to play it on your computer , and your MP3 player ?
Well , that 's three separate purchases .
With iTunes , it was a single purchase.These are all things that we now take for granted for any on-line store we visit.If you do n't like iPods , do n't buy one .
You can buy many other MP3 players and there are many online stores that are a bit cheaper than Apple , or have music you can not find on the Apple store .
These MP3 players work well with those stores.If you like iPods and have an iPod , buying from the iTunes store is quick , easy , and if you think that 's worth the 20 cent premium , then buy from iTunes.It 's that simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...then, don't buy LPs from Apple.
That simple.
You can still by stuff song-by-song.Apple has two sets of customers.
Those of us who buy stuff from iTunes and the content providers who provide the merchandise to iTunes.
Apple has to balance out the two competing interests.
Sorry if you don't like that.The content providers never liked the song-by-song buying because people cherry pick.
What use to be a $12.99 album sale is now only a $2.98 sale of three songs that everyone likes a lot.
Even decent songs that people might have grown to like weren't selling because people bought for immediate gratification.
The triple tier pricing wasn't helping.To get people buying albums again, Apple and the recording industry came up with something that provides an extra benefit for buying an entire album.
You get linear notes, extra songs, a few behind-the-scenes type of stuff, etc.If you think it is now worth plucking down $12.99 for an "album", go for it!
If not, then buy what you want song-by-song.At least give Apple credit that the album standard is an open standard with no DRM.
Anyone can sell "albums".
Anyone can create an "album".
(The $10,000 fee is a misunderstanding.
When Apple came up with the Album concept, the record companies could produce their own, or have Apple do it for them.
To the big studios, $10,000 is a bargain, and many took it.
It allowed Apple to have Albums on sale from day one, and showed the potential of albums to everyone.
The standard is open, and Apple will allow anyone to create albums.
)Whatever you think of iTunes, it showed the world how to actually be profitable selling on line content: Make the transaction easy, provide reasonable value, and give consumers what they want.
Apparently, that was a revelation to the record companies.
The iTunes store introduced the following concepts:* Song-by-song pricing.
The recording industry wanted to push bundles and subscriptions* You own the song when you buy it.
The recording industry wanted to charge both subscription and rent.
* Reasonable pricing: 99 cents/song was a shocker to the industry who wanted to charge $2.99.
* Easy shopping experience: The iTunes store showed everyone else how to setup an online store.
Now, there are dozens of them.
* Actually using the song on multiple devices.
Yes, there was originally copy protection, but as far as copy protection went, it was quite mild: You could download your music to your MP3 player, you could burn a CD of it, and you could share it with five different computers.
Apple may have never liked the idea of DRM, but the recording industry would never have gotten on board if Apple didn't have any at all.
But think of what the recording industry wanted to do: You want a CD, to play it on your computer, and your MP3 player?
Well, that's three separate purchases.
With iTunes, it was a single purchase.These are all things that we now take for granted for any on-line store we visit.If you don't like iPods, don't buy one.
You can buy many other MP3 players and there are many online stores that are a bit cheaper than Apple, or have music you cannot find on the Apple store.
These MP3 players work well with those stores.If you like iPods and have an iPod, buying from the iTunes store is quick, easy, and if you think that's worth the 20 cent premium, then buy from iTunes.It's that simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734969</id>
	<title>Re:XXS and other issues</title>
	<author>jorx</author>
	<datestamp>1255462620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is quite likely that if they let people design their own LP's then Apple has to vet them for programming issues like cross site scripting especially if it allows HTML, Javascript or other languages to be active within them. And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.</p></div><p>I'm sure Apple could employ someone for a mere fraction of $10,000 per album to vet the code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is quite likely that if they let people design their own LP 's then Apple has to vet them for programming issues like cross site scripting especially if it allows HTML , Javascript or other languages to be active within them .
And they just do n't have the time to go over everyones code.I 'm sure Apple could employ someone for a mere fraction of $ 10,000 per album to vet the code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is quite likely that if they let people design their own LP's then Apple has to vet them for programming issues like cross site scripting especially if it allows HTML, Javascript or other languages to be active within them.
And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.I'm sure Apple could employ someone for a mere fraction of $10,000 per album to vet the code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732391</id>
	<title>Because Apple is the new Microsoft</title>
	<author>oldwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1255451100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have always been hard on the garage developer, since the first MAC left the apple ][ programmers behind.  Only apple hardware shalt work with apple and only corporate fee level software.  (Maybe Apple is actually the new Nintendo)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have always been hard on the garage developer , since the first MAC left the apple ] [ programmers behind .
Only apple hardware shalt work with apple and only corporate fee level software .
( Maybe Apple is actually the new Nintendo )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have always been hard on the garage developer, since the first MAC left the apple ][ programmers behind.
Only apple hardware shalt work with apple and only corporate fee level software.
(Maybe Apple is actually the new Nintendo)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29740593</id>
	<title>Re:Apple says there is no $10,000 charge</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1255449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, an iTunes spokesman says the fee is fiction. "There is no production fee charged by Apple," he says. "We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own."</p></div></blockquote><p>

*Message from Translation computer*<br>
*Language identified: marketspeak*<br>
*Transcript begins*<br> <br>

"Fuck, we were caught. First off I deny all knowledge, after all we are in cahoots so this will be difficult to prove. Well give some reassuring placations until this whole things blows over and it's back to business as usual."<br> <br>

*Transcript ends*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , an iTunes spokesman says the fee is fiction .
" There is no production fee charged by Apple , " he says .
" We 're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon , allowing both major and indie labels to create their own .
" * Message from Translation computer * * Language identified : marketspeak * * Transcript begins * " Fuck , we were caught .
First off I deny all knowledge , after all we are in cahoots so this will be difficult to prove .
Well give some reassuring placations until this whole things blows over and it 's back to business as usual .
" * Transcript ends *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, an iTunes spokesman says the fee is fiction.
"There is no production fee charged by Apple," he says.
"We're releasing the open specs for iTunes LP soon, allowing both major and indie labels to create their own.
"

*Message from Translation computer*
*Language identified: marketspeak*
*Transcript begins* 

"Fuck, we were caught.
First off I deny all knowledge, after all we are in cahoots so this will be difficult to prove.
Well give some reassuring placations until this whole things blows over and it's back to business as usual.
" 

*Transcript ends*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736851</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255427460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;That wouldn't be a standard CD then.</p><p>False.  There's nothing in Redbook specification that forbids encoding Dolby surround onto the 2-track audio.<br>.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.</p><p>Who's pretending?  If a side-by-side comparison I can hear the difference between the original CD and 256 kbit/s MP3/AAC especially when the sound's coming from a 5-speaker stereo.  I can hear that characteristic ringing and sizzle sound of the lossy-compressed sample.  Also oftentimes the "echo" encoded on the CD gets stripped from the MP3/AAC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; That would n't be a standard CD then.False .
There 's nothing in Redbook specification that forbids encoding Dolby surround onto the 2-track audio.. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.Who 's pretending ?
If a side-by-side comparison I can hear the difference between the original CD and 256 kbit/s MP3/AAC especially when the sound 's coming from a 5-speaker stereo .
I can hear that characteristic ringing and sizzle sound of the lossy-compressed sample .
Also oftentimes the " echo " encoded on the CD gets stripped from the MP3/AAC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;That wouldn't be a standard CD then.False.
There's nothing in Redbook specification that forbids encoding Dolby surround onto the 2-track audio..&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The compressed AACs sold on itunes sound like crap on a full-sized 5-speaker stereo.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Stop pretending that you have supernatural ability to hear algorithms which reproduce PCM streams to near-perfect precision.Who's pretending?
If a side-by-side comparison I can hear the difference between the original CD and 256 kbit/s MP3/AAC especially when the sound's coming from a 5-speaker stereo.
I can hear that characteristic ringing and sizzle sound of the lossy-compressed sample.
Also oftentimes the "echo" encoded on the CD gets stripped from the MP3/AAC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734153</id>
	<title>Re:That's easy</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1255459020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because Apple is a big corporation primarly interested in making money. Getting $10000 in design fees is a handy way of making $10000 more then if they just let you put it up for free.</p></div><p>Except that breaks Apple's business model. Apple makes money selling iPods and iPhones and Macs. They run the iTunes music store at near break even prices in order to sell more hardware. Charging high fees as a way to make money, limits content and gives people less incentive to buy the hardware that makes Apple money.</p><p>Of course since it turns out Apple was never charging $10,000 and they're opening the format up to everyone for free, it's kind of a non-issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Apple is a big corporation primarly interested in making money .
Getting $ 10000 in design fees is a handy way of making $ 10000 more then if they just let you put it up for free.Except that breaks Apple 's business model .
Apple makes money selling iPods and iPhones and Macs .
They run the iTunes music store at near break even prices in order to sell more hardware .
Charging high fees as a way to make money , limits content and gives people less incentive to buy the hardware that makes Apple money.Of course since it turns out Apple was never charging $ 10,000 and they 're opening the format up to everyone for free , it 's kind of a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Apple is a big corporation primarly interested in making money.
Getting $10000 in design fees is a handy way of making $10000 more then if they just let you put it up for free.Except that breaks Apple's business model.
Apple makes money selling iPods and iPhones and Macs.
They run the iTunes music store at near break even prices in order to sell more hardware.
Charging high fees as a way to make money, limits content and gives people less incentive to buy the hardware that makes Apple money.Of course since it turns out Apple was never charging $10,000 and they're opening the format up to everyone for free, it's kind of a non-issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732171</id>
	<title>Same reason they won't sell your iPhone App</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1255450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It hasn't passed the approval process.
In this case, maybe they haven't finished designing the gargantuan process your LP will have to go through yet and exacting restrictions your LP must obey to get approval, hence the difficulty...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has n't passed the approval process .
In this case , maybe they have n't finished designing the gargantuan process your LP will have to go through yet and exacting restrictions your LP must obey to get approval , hence the difficulty.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It hasn't passed the approval process.
In this case, maybe they haven't finished designing the gargantuan process your LP will have to go through yet and exacting restrictions your LP must obey to get approval, hence the difficulty...
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734307</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1255459680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, if I can download the cover art and song lyrics in electronic form for free from the internet, why should I care if they are included with the music purchase? Are they including a unique identifier somewhere in this "added value" content, so they can track piracy? It doesn't provide any value to me as a consumer, so it must be providing some value to the (increasingly inaccurately named) record company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , if I can download the cover art and song lyrics in electronic form for free from the internet , why should I care if they are included with the music purchase ?
Are they including a unique identifier somewhere in this " added value " content , so they can track piracy ?
It does n't provide any value to me as a consumer , so it must be providing some value to the ( increasingly inaccurately named ) record company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, if I can download the cover art and song lyrics in electronic form for free from the internet, why should I care if they are included with the music purchase?
Are they including a unique identifier somewhere in this "added value" content, so they can track piracy?
It doesn't provide any value to me as a consumer, so it must be providing some value to the (increasingly inaccurately named) record company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732243</id>
	<title>NEWS FLASH!</title>
	<author>dskoll</author>
	<datestamp>1255450380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a stunning new development, Apple revealed itself to be an anal-retentive control-freak of a corporation, with delusions of monopolistic grandeur.  Video at 11.

</p><p>In other news, it was revealed that the Pope is, in fact, Catholic, and that bears tend to defecate in the woods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a stunning new development , Apple revealed itself to be an anal-retentive control-freak of a corporation , with delusions of monopolistic grandeur .
Video at 11 .
In other news , it was revealed that the Pope is , in fact , Catholic , and that bears tend to defecate in the woods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a stunning new development, Apple revealed itself to be an anal-retentive control-freak of a corporation, with delusions of monopolistic grandeur.
Video at 11.
In other news, it was revealed that the Pope is, in fact, Catholic, and that bears tend to defecate in the woods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731443</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255446900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These things are a last attempt to try and make "albums" relevant. They don't matter. Albums are an ex-parrot. They're pushing up the daisies. They're singing in the... no, that's it, they're not singing at all. That's the problem. They're tragically unhip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These things are a last attempt to try and make " albums " relevant .
They do n't matter .
Albums are an ex-parrot .
They 're pushing up the daisies .
They 're singing in the... no , that 's it , they 're not singing at all .
That 's the problem .
They 're tragically unhip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things are a last attempt to try and make "albums" relevant.
They don't matter.
Albums are an ex-parrot.
They're pushing up the daisies.
They're singing in the... no, that's it, they're not singing at all.
That's the problem.
They're tragically unhip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29742379</id>
	<title>Sell you what?</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1255516440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, this just in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Apple sells a product they don't own, in partnership with those that do own it.</p><p>Apple has gone on record as stating they hate the DRM, they would love to sell individual tracks at a lower price, and they are all for selling albums, but not at the rate of 99c x the number of songs, but their partner on the other hand has other ideas, and the partner calls the shots. By law, basically.</p><p>I would guess that independent artists are not going to get anywhere because there are ongoing discussions with those that own the product (RIAA members in the US; others elsewhere) to sell albums on terms that are somewhat palatable to users, and that Apple is focussed on getting those guys to sign something first.</p><p>Those discussions may be ongoing, stalled, or left for dead, but regardless until they result in some kind of agreement, the album thing is not going to happen. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , this just in ... Apple sells a product they do n't own , in partnership with those that do own it.Apple has gone on record as stating they hate the DRM , they would love to sell individual tracks at a lower price , and they are all for selling albums , but not at the rate of 99c x the number of songs , but their partner on the other hand has other ideas , and the partner calls the shots .
By law , basically.I would guess that independent artists are not going to get anywhere because there are ongoing discussions with those that own the product ( RIAA members in the US ; others elsewhere ) to sell albums on terms that are somewhat palatable to users , and that Apple is focussed on getting those guys to sign something first.Those discussions may be ongoing , stalled , or left for dead , but regardless until they result in some kind of agreement , the album thing is not going to happen .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, this just in ... Apple sells a product they don't own, in partnership with those that do own it.Apple has gone on record as stating they hate the DRM, they would love to sell individual tracks at a lower price, and they are all for selling albums, but not at the rate of 99c x the number of songs, but their partner on the other hand has other ideas, and the partner calls the shots.
By law, basically.I would guess that independent artists are not going to get anywhere because there are ongoing discussions with those that own the product (RIAA members in the US; others elsewhere) to sell albums on terms that are somewhat palatable to users, and that Apple is focussed on getting those guys to sign something first.Those discussions may be ongoing, stalled, or left for dead, but regardless until they result in some kind of agreement, the album thing is not going to happen.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733205</id>
	<title>WRONG!!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255454940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friend is on iTunes. He is not even indie, he's a nobody with no label. Yet his songs are on iTunes. How?</p><p>Tunecore. Read up on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend is on iTunes .
He is not even indie , he 's a nobody with no label .
Yet his songs are on iTunes .
How ? Tunecore. Read up on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend is on iTunes.
He is not even indie, he's a nobody with no label.
Yet his songs are on iTunes.
How?Tunecore. Read up on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731345</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1255446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nope</p><p>they want you to buy a whole album and not a few songs so they sell you an LP which is all the songs, a few videos, and DVD type making of crap that you can only view on a computer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nopethey want you to buy a whole album and not a few songs so they sell you an LP which is all the songs , a few videos , and DVD type making of crap that you can only view on a computer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nopethey want you to buy a whole album and not a few songs so they sell you an LP which is all the songs, a few videos, and DVD type making of crap that you can only view on a computer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731633</id>
	<title>Re:XXS and other issues</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1255447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.</i></p><p>And don't have the competency to write some static screening tools that will reject all the XSS stuff etc?</p><p>And don't have the legal chops to write contractual language that will let them pwn your ass if you do submit LP's with XSS etc in them?</p><p>While putting a paywall up does have the advantage of creating a somewhat self-policing marketplace in this regard, my sense is that a $500 fee would do the same job and not exclude smaller players.  It isn't the fact of the fee but its size that provides the evidence of Apple's malicious intent in preventing iTunes users from having access to LPs from smaller players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they just do n't have the time to go over everyones code.And do n't have the competency to write some static screening tools that will reject all the XSS stuff etc ? And do n't have the legal chops to write contractual language that will let them pwn your ass if you do submit LP 's with XSS etc in them ? While putting a paywall up does have the advantage of creating a somewhat self-policing marketplace in this regard , my sense is that a $ 500 fee would do the same job and not exclude smaller players .
It is n't the fact of the fee but its size that provides the evidence of Apple 's malicious intent in preventing iTunes users from having access to LPs from smaller players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.And don't have the competency to write some static screening tools that will reject all the XSS stuff etc?And don't have the legal chops to write contractual language that will let them pwn your ass if you do submit LP's with XSS etc in them?While putting a paywall up does have the advantage of creating a somewhat self-policing marketplace in this regard, my sense is that a $500 fee would do the same job and not exclude smaller players.
It isn't the fact of the fee but its size that provides the evidence of Apple's malicious intent in preventing iTunes users from having access to LPs from smaller players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733967</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Stinky Fartface</author>
	<datestamp>1255458300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+5 Funny!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 Funny ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5 Funny!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732575</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1255451940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We always started the year out right by liberating one of the nice fiberglass trays from the student union cafeteria.  Worked way better than an LP cover and the lip kept seeds and stems out of your lap.</p><p>You had to get a fiberglass tray as opposed to one of the plastic ones; only the fiberglass trays had a hard, smooth surface that could be scraped clean with your student ID.  The plastic trays usually had some lame pebbly finish or some other embossed design that prevented a thorough cleaning.</p><p>LP covers were the worst option -- no lip, often textured paper, or worse, something like "Sticky Fingers" with some kind of non-flat surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We always started the year out right by liberating one of the nice fiberglass trays from the student union cafeteria .
Worked way better than an LP cover and the lip kept seeds and stems out of your lap.You had to get a fiberglass tray as opposed to one of the plastic ones ; only the fiberglass trays had a hard , smooth surface that could be scraped clean with your student ID .
The plastic trays usually had some lame pebbly finish or some other embossed design that prevented a thorough cleaning.LP covers were the worst option -- no lip , often textured paper , or worse , something like " Sticky Fingers " with some kind of non-flat surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We always started the year out right by liberating one of the nice fiberglass trays from the student union cafeteria.
Worked way better than an LP cover and the lip kept seeds and stems out of your lap.You had to get a fiberglass tray as opposed to one of the plastic ones; only the fiberglass trays had a hard, smooth surface that could be scraped clean with your student ID.
The plastic trays usually had some lame pebbly finish or some other embossed design that prevented a thorough cleaning.LP covers were the worst option -- no lip, often textured paper, or worse, something like "Sticky Fingers" with some kind of non-flat surface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731423</id>
	<title>More bleating whiners</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, what "indie" groups are they keeping out with this supposed $10,000 thing (which isn't even proven true).  As an 'indie' you can't get your music onto the iTunes store without backing of a distributor (and hence you're not 'indie' anyway).</p><p>Considering there are only 12 iTunes LP's available, if I were an 'indie' it would be a no-brainer to pony up $10k, since you'd have a massive audience for people who are buying them just to see them.   Just like when CD's and DVD's were new and you bought whatever was available because so little was actually for sale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what " indie " groups are they keeping out with this supposed $ 10,000 thing ( which is n't even proven true ) .
As an 'indie ' you ca n't get your music onto the iTunes store without backing of a distributor ( and hence you 're not 'indie ' anyway ) .Considering there are only 12 iTunes LP 's available , if I were an 'indie ' it would be a no-brainer to pony up $ 10k , since you 'd have a massive audience for people who are buying them just to see them .
Just like when CD 's and DVD 's were new and you bought whatever was available because so little was actually for sale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what "indie" groups are they keeping out with this supposed $10,000 thing (which isn't even proven true).
As an 'indie' you can't get your music onto the iTunes store without backing of a distributor (and hence you're not 'indie' anyway).Considering there are only 12 iTunes LP's available, if I were an 'indie' it would be a no-brainer to pony up $10k, since you'd have a massive audience for people who are buying them just to see them.
Just like when CD's and DVD's were new and you bought whatever was available because so little was actually for sale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731759</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1255448400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras
<br> <br>
From who? I think this favors the record labels (and Apple) more than anybody else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras From who ?
I think this favors the record labels ( and Apple ) more than anybody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras
 
From who?
I think this favors the record labels (and Apple) more than anybody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29752175</id>
	<title>Crown Holder man jean and Gucci Sunglass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.<br>Features:<br>1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)<br>Size for women US5-8/10<br>2) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)<br>3) Many designs and colors available<br>4) Delivery can be prompt shipping<br>5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .</p><p>OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Http : //www.tntshoes.com     The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles , You will find what your like.Features : 1 ) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11 ( some US13/UK12 ) Size for women US5-8/102 ) Packing : 1pr/box , 12prs/carton , 12prs/style/color ( original box and retro card ) 3 ) Many designs and colors available4 ) Delivery can be prompt shipping5 ) We accept paypal + + + aaa quality .OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                     Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Http://www.tntshoes.com
    The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.Features:1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)Size for women US5-8/102) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)3) Many designs and colors available4) Delivery can be prompt shipping5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                    Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732111</id>
	<title>Re:XXS and other issues</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code."
<br> <br>
iPhone. App. Store.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And they just do n't have the time to go over everyones code .
" iPhone .
App. Store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.
"
 
iPhone.
App. Store.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731671</id>
	<title>Marketing</title>
	<author>bjourne</author>
	<datestamp>1255448040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that Slashdot will have something about it to write, to generate buzz about this new "iTunes LP" thing no one has ever heard about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that Slashdot will have something about it to write , to generate buzz about this new " iTunes LP " thing no one has ever heard about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that Slashdot will have something about it to write, to generate buzz about this new "iTunes LP" thing no one has ever heard about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731339</id>
	<title>Apple hates it's customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that Apple hates it's customers and is angry that it depends on them for revenue.</p><p>Apple is not run for the benefit of their customers, but for the shareholders, executives and their friends.</p><p>They hate you, and their corporate behaviour says so again and again.</p><p>But some victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers just keep going back.</p><p>the eye-candy is so... pretty... but they are not your friend. They still remember the time when you (their customers) left them and apple nearly went down the pan, and they blame you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that Apple hates it 's customers and is angry that it depends on them for revenue.Apple is not run for the benefit of their customers , but for the shareholders , executives and their friends.They hate you , and their corporate behaviour says so again and again.But some victims ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H customers just keep going back.the eye-candy is so... pretty... but they are not your friend .
They still remember the time when you ( their customers ) left them and apple nearly went down the pan , and they blame you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that Apple hates it's customers and is angry that it depends on them for revenue.Apple is not run for the benefit of their customers, but for the shareholders, executives and their friends.They hate you, and their corporate behaviour says so again and again.But some victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers just keep going back.the eye-candy is so... pretty... but they are not your friend.
They still remember the time when you (their customers) left them and apple nearly went down the pan, and they blame you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301</id>
	<title>XXS and other issues</title>
	<author>Foofoobar</author>
	<datestamp>1255446000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is quite likely that if they let people design their own LP's then Apple has to vet them for programming issues like cross site scripting especially if it allows HTML, Javascript or other languages to be active within them. And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.<br> <br>

In which case, they need to come up with a standardized couple of formats in which people can plug in artwork, videos and other data to create their own LP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is quite likely that if they let people design their own LP 's then Apple has to vet them for programming issues like cross site scripting especially if it allows HTML , Javascript or other languages to be active within them .
And they just do n't have the time to go over everyones code .
In which case , they need to come up with a standardized couple of formats in which people can plug in artwork , videos and other data to create their own LP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is quite likely that if they let people design their own LP's then Apple has to vet them for programming issues like cross site scripting especially if it allows HTML, Javascript or other languages to be active within them.
And they just don't have the time to go over everyones code.
In which case, they need to come up with a standardized couple of formats in which people can plug in artwork, videos and other data to create their own LP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731685</id>
	<title>Don't like it, don't do it.</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1255448100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$10k to have your music get massive potential exposure via iTunes doesn't sound all that bad to me. Nobody is forcing the business model down peoples throat. iTunes isn't the be all, end all of music distribution. The alternative is open it all up for everyone until iTunes becomes as over congested and so full of crap that it is no better than youtube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 10k to have your music get massive potential exposure via iTunes does n't sound all that bad to me .
Nobody is forcing the business model down peoples throat .
iTunes is n't the be all , end all of music distribution .
The alternative is open it all up for everyone until iTunes becomes as over congested and so full of crap that it is no better than youtube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$10k to have your music get massive potential exposure via iTunes doesn't sound all that bad to me.
Nobody is forcing the business model down peoples throat.
iTunes isn't the be all, end all of music distribution.
The alternative is open it all up for everyone until iTunes becomes as over congested and so full of crap that it is no better than youtube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731919</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1255449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The digital LP is a focus to get those things back, so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ahh, so it's like a torrent that comes complete with cover art and an nfo file, then, but overpriced?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital LP is a focus to get those things back , so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.Ahh , so it 's like a torrent that comes complete with cover art and an nfo file , then , but overpriced ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital LP is a focus to get those things back, so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.Ahh, so it's like a torrent that comes complete with cover art and an nfo file, then, but overpriced?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29739019</id>
	<title>Re:the answer</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1255437000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"LP"</p></div></blockquote><p>Leg Pull<br>Legal Play<br>Lawyer Piss<br>Let's Pretend<br>Last Pitch<br>Limited Potential<br>Lame Product</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" LP " Leg PullLegal PlayLawyer PissLet 's PretendLast PitchLimited PotentialLame Product</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"LP"Leg PullLegal PlayLawyer PissLet's PretendLast PitchLimited PotentialLame Product
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731689</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1255448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's too bad that MP3s can't store lyrics and additional artwork...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's too bad that MP3s ca n't store lyrics and additional artwork.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's too bad that MP3s can't store lyrics and additional artwork...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733349</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1255455600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extras</p></div></blockquote><p>From who?</p></div></blockquote><p>From lots of fans of music. I absolutely love the artwork you find on albums like Rush, Dream Theater, and Yes. It is all part of an expression of their artwork.</p><p>For example, Dream Theater's Octavarium was really incredible when taken as a full package. Although not a concept album in the usual sense, there was a way it was all tied together: a musical octave (hence the album name). There were 8 tracks and each one was in a successive whole-note key (the white keys on the piano) spanning an octave. Between the correct songs, there were small little interludes that were done in the corresponding half-note keys (the black keys). Then littered all through the CD booklet's artwork were all sorts of references to this...lots of occurances of the numbers 2, 3, 5,and 8, and artwork that ties into some of the corresponding songs. To me, the artwork was an important extension of their musical expression.</p><p>Here's the first webpage I found that analyzes it:<br><a href="http://dt.spatang.com/octavarium.php" title="spatang.com">http://dt.spatang.com/octavarium.php</a> [spatang.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extrasFrom who ? From lots of fans of music .
I absolutely love the artwork you find on albums like Rush , Dream Theater , and Yes .
It is all part of an expression of their artwork.For example , Dream Theater 's Octavarium was really incredible when taken as a full package .
Although not a concept album in the usual sense , there was a way it was all tied together : a musical octave ( hence the album name ) .
There were 8 tracks and each one was in a successive whole-note key ( the white keys on the piano ) spanning an octave .
Between the correct songs , there were small little interludes that were done in the corresponding half-note keys ( the black keys ) .
Then littered all through the CD booklet 's artwork were all sorts of references to this...lots of occurances of the numbers 2 , 3 , 5,and 8 , and artwork that ties into some of the corresponding songs .
To me , the artwork was an important extension of their musical expression.Here 's the first webpage I found that analyzes it : http : //dt.spatang.com/octavarium.php [ spatang.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there has been an outcry about the loss of all of those extrasFrom who?From lots of fans of music.
I absolutely love the artwork you find on albums like Rush, Dream Theater, and Yes.
It is all part of an expression of their artwork.For example, Dream Theater's Octavarium was really incredible when taken as a full package.
Although not a concept album in the usual sense, there was a way it was all tied together: a musical octave (hence the album name).
There were 8 tracks and each one was in a successive whole-note key (the white keys on the piano) spanning an octave.
Between the correct songs, there were small little interludes that were done in the corresponding half-note keys (the black keys).
Then littered all through the CD booklet's artwork were all sorts of references to this...lots of occurances of the numbers 2, 3, 5,and 8, and artwork that ties into some of the corresponding songs.
To me, the artwork was an important extension of their musical expression.Here's the first webpage I found that analyzes it:http://dt.spatang.com/octavarium.php [spatang.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731277</id>
	<title>Can anyone think of a reason?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean, can anyone think of a reason better than greed? It's notable that this is basically what IUMA was doing for artists back in the day; they were the pioneers and <em>they</em> didn't charge anything like ten grand for their similar service (which promoted acts via the web long before any software even LIKE iTunes existed.)</p><p>I can think of one other reason: Someone at Apple is seriously deluded. $10,000 will buy a lot of web hosting and SEO. I don't buy for a second the idea that this was pushed on Apple; it seems very much like something Apple would do. They think people are going to pay them these outrageous sums for their design work, but the reality is that their design work outside of computer cases (all impressive examples of which have been done under contract) has always been lackluster at best. Apple's claim to design fame is their nicer version of Garamond.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , can anyone think of a reason better than greed ?
It 's notable that this is basically what IUMA was doing for artists back in the day ; they were the pioneers and they did n't charge anything like ten grand for their similar service ( which promoted acts via the web long before any software even LIKE iTunes existed .
) I can think of one other reason : Someone at Apple is seriously deluded .
$ 10,000 will buy a lot of web hosting and SEO .
I do n't buy for a second the idea that this was pushed on Apple ; it seems very much like something Apple would do .
They think people are going to pay them these outrageous sums for their design work , but the reality is that their design work outside of computer cases ( all impressive examples of which have been done under contract ) has always been lackluster at best .
Apple 's claim to design fame is their nicer version of Garamond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, can anyone think of a reason better than greed?
It's notable that this is basically what IUMA was doing for artists back in the day; they were the pioneers and they didn't charge anything like ten grand for their similar service (which promoted acts via the web long before any software even LIKE iTunes existed.
)I can think of one other reason: Someone at Apple is seriously deluded.
$10,000 will buy a lot of web hosting and SEO.
I don't buy for a second the idea that this was pushed on Apple; it seems very much like something Apple would do.
They think people are going to pay them these outrageous sums for their design work, but the reality is that their design work outside of computer cases (all impressive examples of which have been done under contract) has always been lackluster at best.
Apple's claim to design fame is their nicer version of Garamond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732281</id>
	<title>'LP' file format</title>
	<author>miruku</author>
	<datestamp>1255450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The existence of a file format to encompass an EP or LP style collection of files is a nice idea. There exists<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cbr and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cbz for comic book files and other such container formats, so why not for music files? And yeah, throw in a menu and some info, why not,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mkv does this for video files for those who want to use that aspect of the format. But I'm surprised that music lovers/developers haven't come up with something like this before, and I find it kind of funny that now Apple has got in there first and there are complaints. How they manage iTunes aside, can't people who are interested in something like this get together and bash out an Open Format to do the same, either based on this format from Apple or something better? Sure it wouldn't impact the way many people use music files at first, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.png,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rss, and many more formats were in the same position when they came onto the scene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The existence of a file format to encompass an EP or LP style collection of files is a nice idea .
There exists .cbr and .cbz for comic book files and other such container formats , so why not for music files ?
And yeah , throw in a menu and some info , why not , .mkv does this for video files for those who want to use that aspect of the format .
But I 'm surprised that music lovers/developers have n't come up with something like this before , and I find it kind of funny that now Apple has got in there first and there are complaints .
How they manage iTunes aside , ca n't people who are interested in something like this get together and bash out an Open Format to do the same , either based on this format from Apple or something better ?
Sure it would n't impact the way many people use music files at first , but .png , .rss , and many more formats were in the same position when they came onto the scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The existence of a file format to encompass an EP or LP style collection of files is a nice idea.
There exists .cbr and .cbz for comic book files and other such container formats, so why not for music files?
And yeah, throw in a menu and some info, why not, .mkv does this for video files for those who want to use that aspect of the format.
But I'm surprised that music lovers/developers haven't come up with something like this before, and I find it kind of funny that now Apple has got in there first and there are complaints.
How they manage iTunes aside, can't people who are interested in something like this get together and bash out an Open Format to do the same, either based on this format from Apple or something better?
Sure it wouldn't impact the way many people use music files at first, but .png, .rss, and many more formats were in the same position when they came onto the scene.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733105</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>LordKronos</author>
	<datestamp>1255454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems I recently heard some comedian making a similar joke, about how he used to roll joints on an album cover, and how difficult it is to do now on an ipod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems I recently heard some comedian making a similar joke , about how he used to roll joints on an album cover , and how difficult it is to do now on an ipod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems I recently heard some comedian making a similar joke, about how he used to roll joints on an album cover, and how difficult it is to do now on an ipod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1255448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The digital LP is a focus to get those things back, so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.</i></p><p>How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital LP is a focus to get those things back , so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital LP is a focus to get those things back, so you can have all your extras for the complete experience.How are you supposed to sort the seeds out of pot on the back of a digital LP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732541</id>
	<title>Re:LP?</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1255451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not "compressed" but it's still digitally encoded.  iTunes are at low quality now because they don't want people maxing out their monthly bandwidth allotment downloading music, and they don't want to completely fill up people's hard drives with their music collection either.  Plus, you don't want to have to re-encode all your music to put it on your MP3 player. However, going to digital downloads is the only way to move beyond CD quality sound.  There have been a couple competitors to CDs including DVD-Audio and the Super Audio CD.  These never caught on because you had to buy all new devices to play them on.  However, with digital downloads, any device should be able to play any file with any quality level, provided it has the processing power.  So you could have 192 kHz/24-bit audio track similar to DVD audio, without having to go out and buy all new devices.  First we need digital downloads to become mainstream, then we need to up the quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " compressed " but it 's still digitally encoded .
iTunes are at low quality now because they do n't want people maxing out their monthly bandwidth allotment downloading music , and they do n't want to completely fill up people 's hard drives with their music collection either .
Plus , you do n't want to have to re-encode all your music to put it on your MP3 player .
However , going to digital downloads is the only way to move beyond CD quality sound .
There have been a couple competitors to CDs including DVD-Audio and the Super Audio CD .
These never caught on because you had to buy all new devices to play them on .
However , with digital downloads , any device should be able to play any file with any quality level , provided it has the processing power .
So you could have 192 kHz/24-bit audio track similar to DVD audio , without having to go out and buy all new devices .
First we need digital downloads to become mainstream , then we need to up the quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "compressed" but it's still digitally encoded.
iTunes are at low quality now because they don't want people maxing out their monthly bandwidth allotment downloading music, and they don't want to completely fill up people's hard drives with their music collection either.
Plus, you don't want to have to re-encode all your music to put it on your MP3 player.
However, going to digital downloads is the only way to move beyond CD quality sound.
There have been a couple competitors to CDs including DVD-Audio and the Super Audio CD.
These never caught on because you had to buy all new devices to play them on.
However, with digital downloads, any device should be able to play any file with any quality level, provided it has the processing power.
So you could have 192 kHz/24-bit audio track similar to DVD audio, without having to go out and buy all new devices.
First we need digital downloads to become mainstream, then we need to up the quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29741601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29739019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29735515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29740593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29740443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_138254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29742349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29739019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29735515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29740593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_138254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731689
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731749
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733197
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734449
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736851
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29740443
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732787
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29734307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731919
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29741601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731759
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29731693
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29742349
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29736257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29732575
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_138254.29733105
</commentlist>
</conversation>
