<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_179211</id>
	<title>Hearst Launching Kindle Competitor and Platform "By Publishers, For Publishers"</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1259955960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Hearst Corporation has announced their intention to launch an <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/04/hearst-corp-creating-kindle-competitor-by-publishers-for-publ/">e-reader competitor to Amazon's Kindle</a> and a supporting store and platform that is much more "publisher friendly."  More details are available form their <a href="http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news\_view&amp;newsId=20091204005090&amp;newsLang=en">official press release</a> this morning. <i>"Launching in 2010, Skiff provides a complete e-reading solution that includes the Skiff Service platform, Skiff Store and Skiff-enabled devices. Skiff will sell and distribute newspapers, magazines, books, blogs and other content. Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to maintain their distinct visual identities, build and extend relationships with subscribers, and deliver dynamic content and advertising to a range of dedicated e-readers and multipurpose devices."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hearst Corporation has announced their intention to launch an e-reader competitor to Amazon 's Kindle and a supporting store and platform that is much more " publisher friendly .
" More details are available form their official press release this morning .
" Launching in 2010 , Skiff provides a complete e-reading solution that includes the Skiff Service platform , Skiff Store and Skiff-enabled devices .
Skiff will sell and distribute newspapers , magazines , books , blogs and other content .
Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to maintain their distinct visual identities , build and extend relationships with subscribers , and deliver dynamic content and advertising to a range of dedicated e-readers and multipurpose devices .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hearst Corporation has announced their intention to launch an e-reader competitor to Amazon's Kindle and a supporting store and platform that is much more "publisher friendly.
"  More details are available form their official press release this morning.
"Launching in 2010, Skiff provides a complete e-reading solution that includes the Skiff Service platform, Skiff Store and Skiff-enabled devices.
Skiff will sell and distribute newspapers, magazines, books, blogs and other content.
Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to maintain their distinct visual identities, build and extend relationships with subscribers, and deliver dynamic content and advertising to a range of dedicated e-readers and multipurpose devices.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329174</id>
	<title>"By publishers, for Publishers"</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1259922420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great. Then they can use the friggin' thing, because I sure won't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
Then they can use the friggin ' thing , because I sure wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
Then they can use the friggin' thing, because I sure won't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</id>
	<title>Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259959620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Translates to: Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translates to : Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translates to: Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331192</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259933100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ehhh.  I won't even consider the technology or the product.  The name is enough for me to decide what I think.  Hearst.  Patty Hearst.  The terrorist little bitch with the rich daddy.  Should properly have been executed decades ago.  Fuck 'em.  Given the choice between being screwed by a Hearst, or a Jobs, or a Gates, or any of dozens of other rat bastards, Hearst will come in last.  I hope their reader turns into one HUGE money sink, that never makes them two cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehhh .
I wo n't even consider the technology or the product .
The name is enough for me to decide what I think .
Hearst. Patty Hearst .
The terrorist little bitch with the rich daddy .
Should properly have been executed decades ago .
Fuck 'em .
Given the choice between being screwed by a Hearst , or a Jobs , or a Gates , or any of dozens of other rat bastards , Hearst will come in last .
I hope their reader turns into one HUGE money sink , that never makes them two cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehhh.
I won't even consider the technology or the product.
The name is enough for me to decide what I think.
Hearst.  Patty Hearst.
The terrorist little bitch with the rich daddy.
Should properly have been executed decades ago.
Fuck 'em.
Given the choice between being screwed by a Hearst, or a Jobs, or a Gates, or any of dozens of other rat bastards, Hearst will come in last.
I hope their reader turns into one HUGE money sink, that never makes them two cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796</id>
	<title>Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259959740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's their purported customer?</p><blockquote><div><p>Despite all the problems with the Kindle -- poor PDF support, low-contrast screen, Orwellian fears -- it makes for a mighty-fine reading experience for users. From a publisher's perspective it stinks, with Amazon reportedly sucking down 70\% of a sale's proceeds.</p></div></blockquote><p>How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have? I've heard that it's about 70\%, so what's their problem, anyway?</p><blockquote><div><p>Skiff promises better graphics and better layouts of digital content, which is encouraging, but it'll also allow the easy injection of advertising into paid content -- something we're less happy to see making the transition over from print.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a deal-killer for me; the first time I see an ad in a book I'll return the damned thing where I bought it. If you're going to put ads in your books, I'd damned well better get it for free or there's NO SALE.</p><p>I'll put up with ads in a printed magazine, because all I'm paying for is paper and ink, ads pay for the rest. I'm not going to pay for electronic media with ads; no paper and no ink. That's just ubergreed, double dipping, and is completely unwarranted and unacceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's their purported customer ? Despite all the problems with the Kindle -- poor PDF support , low-contrast screen , Orwellian fears -- it makes for a mighty-fine reading experience for users .
From a publisher 's perspective it stinks , with Amazon reportedly sucking down 70 \ % of a sale 's proceeds.How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have ?
I 've heard that it 's about 70 \ % , so what 's their problem , anyway ? Skiff promises better graphics and better layouts of digital content , which is encouraging , but it 'll also allow the easy injection of advertising into paid content -- something we 're less happy to see making the transition over from print.That 's a deal-killer for me ; the first time I see an ad in a book I 'll return the damned thing where I bought it .
If you 're going to put ads in your books , I 'd damned well better get it for free or there 's NO SALE.I 'll put up with ads in a printed magazine , because all I 'm paying for is paper and ink , ads pay for the rest .
I 'm not going to pay for electronic media with ads ; no paper and no ink .
That 's just ubergreed , double dipping , and is completely unwarranted and unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's their purported customer?Despite all the problems with the Kindle -- poor PDF support, low-contrast screen, Orwellian fears -- it makes for a mighty-fine reading experience for users.
From a publisher's perspective it stinks, with Amazon reportedly sucking down 70\% of a sale's proceeds.How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have?
I've heard that it's about 70\%, so what's their problem, anyway?Skiff promises better graphics and better layouts of digital content, which is encouraging, but it'll also allow the easy injection of advertising into paid content -- something we're less happy to see making the transition over from print.That's a deal-killer for me; the first time I see an ad in a book I'll return the damned thing where I bought it.
If you're going to put ads in your books, I'd damned well better get it for free or there's NO SALE.I'll put up with ads in a printed magazine, because all I'm paying for is paper and ink, ads pay for the rest.
I'm not going to pay for electronic media with ads; no paper and no ink.
That's just ubergreed, double dipping, and is completely unwarranted and unacceptable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328546</id>
	<title>Heasrt e-Book Reader?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say this one is DOA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say this one is DOA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say this one is DOA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327968</id>
	<title>For Publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't publishers be for all platforms in order to get the largest audience?  It seems fairly trivial for them to change their prices for different providers to get the same margins everywhere and it's not like it's technically difficult to deliver different formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't publishers be for all platforms in order to get the largest audience ?
It seems fairly trivial for them to change their prices for different providers to get the same margins everywhere and it 's not like it 's technically difficult to deliver different formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't publishers be for all platforms in order to get the largest audience?
It seems fairly trivial for them to change their prices for different providers to get the same margins everywhere and it's not like it's technically difficult to deliver different formats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328160</id>
	<title>Big mistake</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any product not designed "By Customers, For Customers" is doomed to failure. Seriously, I don't want an e-book reader that makes the publisher's life easier; I want an e-book reader that makes MY life easier! And since the customer, not the publisher, is the one purchasing this device, I don't anticipate a huge number of sales.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any product not designed " By Customers , For Customers " is doomed to failure .
Seriously , I do n't want an e-book reader that makes the publisher 's life easier ; I want an e-book reader that makes MY life easier !
And since the customer , not the publisher , is the one purchasing this device , I do n't anticipate a huge number of sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any product not designed "By Customers, For Customers" is doomed to failure.
Seriously, I don't want an e-book reader that makes the publisher's life easier; I want an e-book reader that makes MY life easier!
And since the customer, not the publisher, is the one purchasing this device, I don't anticipate a huge number of sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329112</id>
	<title>Re:Even worse</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1259922180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The unit has two spikes that can deploy on command/DRM violation, rendering the user blind."</p><p>Your ideas intrigue me and my company would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The unit has two spikes that can deploy on command/DRM violation , rendering the user blind .
" Your ideas intrigue me and my company would like to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The unit has two spikes that can deploy on command/DRM violation, rendering the user blind.
"Your ideas intrigue me and my company would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329604</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259924580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've already seen publisher's attempts at e-book readers.  They failed, the industry gave up a while ago.  Amazon decided to give it another whack and got it, if not right then close enough with Kindle.  Personally, I think Kindle has not enough features and function, too much cost and too many restrictions and scary factors (Amazon can brick my device remotely?  They can delete content I paid for?  No thanks.)  How will publishers possibly produce a device that is more attractive to both customers and to them?  Either they have to reduce the price of the device (not likely), increase the features (possible, not likely), reduce the restrictions (Hahhahaa!), reduce the price of content (possible, but not likely) or stop offering any alternatives (choke out the Kindle by refusing to publish on it).  I'm betting that they're going to go for some combination that includes increasing restrictions, choking out the kindle and keeping more or less on-par with Kindle's features.  This should be an amusing failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already seen publisher 's attempts at e-book readers .
They failed , the industry gave up a while ago .
Amazon decided to give it another whack and got it , if not right then close enough with Kindle .
Personally , I think Kindle has not enough features and function , too much cost and too many restrictions and scary factors ( Amazon can brick my device remotely ?
They can delete content I paid for ?
No thanks .
) How will publishers possibly produce a device that is more attractive to both customers and to them ?
Either they have to reduce the price of the device ( not likely ) , increase the features ( possible , not likely ) , reduce the restrictions ( Hahhahaa !
) , reduce the price of content ( possible , but not likely ) or stop offering any alternatives ( choke out the Kindle by refusing to publish on it ) .
I 'm betting that they 're going to go for some combination that includes increasing restrictions , choking out the kindle and keeping more or less on-par with Kindle 's features .
This should be an amusing failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already seen publisher's attempts at e-book readers.
They failed, the industry gave up a while ago.
Amazon decided to give it another whack and got it, if not right then close enough with Kindle.
Personally, I think Kindle has not enough features and function, too much cost and too many restrictions and scary factors (Amazon can brick my device remotely?
They can delete content I paid for?
No thanks.
)  How will publishers possibly produce a device that is more attractive to both customers and to them?
Either they have to reduce the price of the device (not likely), increase the features (possible, not likely), reduce the restrictions (Hahhahaa!
), reduce the price of content (possible, but not likely) or stop offering any alternatives (choke out the Kindle by refusing to publish on it).
I'm betting that they're going to go for some combination that includes increasing restrictions, choking out the kindle and keeping more or less on-par with Kindle's features.
This should be an amusing failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328598</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, cause I was just thinking to myself, "Shit, I'd buy a Kindle but I wish it were even more Orwellian and there just aren't enough ad's crammed into my reading material.  Oh, and you know what... more paid subscriptions would be a good addition."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , cause I was just thinking to myself , " Shit , I 'd buy a Kindle but I wish it were even more Orwellian and there just are n't enough ad 's crammed into my reading material .
Oh , and you know what... more paid subscriptions would be a good addition .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, cause I was just thinking to myself, "Shit, I'd buy a Kindle but I wish it were even more Orwellian and there just aren't enough ad's crammed into my reading material.
Oh, and you know what... more paid subscriptions would be a good addition.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328476</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, where is the customer in this?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But this, "publisher centric" model seems really l8me</i></p><p>Rather "late me?" Do you mean "14me"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But this , " publisher centric " model seems really l8meRather " late me ?
" Do you mean " 14me " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But this, "publisher centric" model seems really l8meRather "late me?
" Do you mean "14me"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331444</id>
	<title>Re:Magazines and Newspapers</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1259934900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To get the market share they need AND avoid hardware freeloaders, Skiff will have to offer a hardware + 3 year multi-magazine subscription bundle for at least $10/month, probably $15.  They can beat out paper magazines by giving people who'd normally subscribe to only one or two magazines, access to dozens for the same price, creating a higher perceived value.</p></div><p>I can tell you right now, no amount of cost savings is going to get me to buy something built for publishers - this implies to me they don't care about consumers, and they can revoke content or make me view ads when all I really want to do is read stuff by content providers - I'm fine with having full page ads, but I need to be able to skip them - and something designed for publishers is not going to allow that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To get the market share they need AND avoid hardware freeloaders , Skiff will have to offer a hardware + 3 year multi-magazine subscription bundle for at least $ 10/month , probably $ 15 .
They can beat out paper magazines by giving people who 'd normally subscribe to only one or two magazines , access to dozens for the same price , creating a higher perceived value.I can tell you right now , no amount of cost savings is going to get me to buy something built for publishers - this implies to me they do n't care about consumers , and they can revoke content or make me view ads when all I really want to do is read stuff by content providers - I 'm fine with having full page ads , but I need to be able to skip them - and something designed for publishers is not going to allow that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get the market share they need AND avoid hardware freeloaders, Skiff will have to offer a hardware + 3 year multi-magazine subscription bundle for at least $10/month, probably $15.
They can beat out paper magazines by giving people who'd normally subscribe to only one or two magazines, access to dozens for the same price, creating a higher perceived value.I can tell you right now, no amount of cost savings is going to get me to buy something built for publishers - this implies to me they don't care about consumers, and they can revoke content or make me view ads when all I really want to do is read stuff by content providers - I'm fine with having full page ads, but I need to be able to skip them - and something designed for publishers is not going to allow that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30332602</id>
	<title>Hearst launching dud product.  News at 11...</title>
	<author>keneng</author>
	<datestamp>1259947800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Skiff platform is not applicable...We have p2p web sites for that.</p><p>The unseen Skiff device may be enticing but smartdevices.com.cn SMARTQ7/SMARTQ5 Mobile Internet Devices allow you to read/create<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf files.  Can the skiff device allow you do create a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf file of your own?  I would bet that it doesn't because Media Content Creator's focus is for its consumer to JUST CONSUME.  www.hearst.com has a page mentioning their skiff services are "...all optimized for wireless delivery to dedicated e-readers..." which backs up my point.  Hearst isn't interested in encouraging the "Do-it-yourself" revolution; Hearst is only interested in keeping their media content empire status quo.  Good luck with that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Skiff platform is not applicable...We have p2p web sites for that.The unseen Skiff device may be enticing but smartdevices.com.cn SMARTQ7/SMARTQ5 Mobile Internet Devices allow you to read/create .pdf files .
Can the skiff device allow you do create a .pdf file of your own ?
I would bet that it does n't because Media Content Creator 's focus is for its consumer to JUST CONSUME .
www.hearst.com has a page mentioning their skiff services are " ...all optimized for wireless delivery to dedicated e-readers... " which backs up my point .
Hearst is n't interested in encouraging the " Do-it-yourself " revolution ; Hearst is only interested in keeping their media content empire status quo .
Good luck with that ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Skiff platform is not applicable...We have p2p web sites for that.The unseen Skiff device may be enticing but smartdevices.com.cn SMARTQ7/SMARTQ5 Mobile Internet Devices allow you to read/create .pdf files.
Can the skiff device allow you do create a .pdf file of your own?
I would bet that it doesn't because Media Content Creator's focus is for its consumer to JUST CONSUME.
www.hearst.com has a page mentioning their skiff services are "...all optimized for wireless delivery to dedicated e-readers..." which backs up my point.
Hearst isn't interested in encouraging the "Do-it-yourself" revolution; Hearst is only interested in keeping their media content empire status quo.
Good luck with that ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328652</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think many are missing the point. When it says "for publishers", I think they are referring to the ability to have better graphics and better typography. Sounds like a huge step forward for these mainly black and white devices. I know there is this whole idea that stuff like this is driven by greed, but this device may pave the way for future devices which have more features. Think about how websites used to look in 1998. It's only because of professional webdesigners trying to maximize usability, time on site, ad clicks, and return on investment that we've moved to the sleek look of what is web 2.0 which has been used for so many free and open projects (most of which are supported by ads).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many are missing the point .
When it says " for publishers " , I think they are referring to the ability to have better graphics and better typography .
Sounds like a huge step forward for these mainly black and white devices .
I know there is this whole idea that stuff like this is driven by greed , but this device may pave the way for future devices which have more features .
Think about how websites used to look in 1998 .
It 's only because of professional webdesigners trying to maximize usability , time on site , ad clicks , and return on investment that we 've moved to the sleek look of what is web 2.0 which has been used for so many free and open projects ( most of which are supported by ads ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many are missing the point.
When it says "for publishers", I think they are referring to the ability to have better graphics and better typography.
Sounds like a huge step forward for these mainly black and white devices.
I know there is this whole idea that stuff like this is driven by greed, but this device may pave the way for future devices which have more features.
Think about how websites used to look in 1998.
It's only because of professional webdesigners trying to maximize usability, time on site, ad clicks, and return on investment that we've moved to the sleek look of what is web 2.0 which has been used for so many free and open projects (most of which are supported by ads).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328288</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1259918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Translates to: Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.</i></p><p>Many don't know that copyright in England was originally put in place to protect the authors from the publishers, not the readers with their pirate ink plates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translates to : Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.Many do n't know that copyright in England was originally put in place to protect the authors from the publishers , not the readers with their pirate ink plates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translates to: Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.Many don't know that copyright in England was originally put in place to protect the authors from the publishers, not the readers with their pirate ink plates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327850</id>
	<title>Crash</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1259959920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and BURN baby....burn!</p><p>Hey I got a great idea?  Lets make everyone pay for a crummy E-Reader at high prices PLUS make them pay for the book subscriptions, PLUS sell advertising to make the reading even less enjoyable after the user gets the bill!!</p><p>PLUS we can just kill the book we sell, so the customer can never have a copy and of course, we can sell the same book to them twice!!!</p><p>-Signed...your average everday greedy American Corporate Scum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and BURN baby....burn ! Hey I got a great idea ?
Lets make everyone pay for a crummy E-Reader at high prices PLUS make them pay for the book subscriptions , PLUS sell advertising to make the reading even less enjoyable after the user gets the bill !
! PLUS we can just kill the book we sell , so the customer can never have a copy and of course , we can sell the same book to them twice ! !
! -Signed...your average everday greedy American Corporate Scum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and BURN baby....burn!Hey I got a great idea?
Lets make everyone pay for a crummy E-Reader at high prices PLUS make them pay for the book subscriptions, PLUS sell advertising to make the reading even less enjoyable after the user gets the bill!
!PLUS we can just kill the book we sell, so the customer can never have a copy and of course, we can sell the same book to them twice!!
!-Signed...your average everday greedy American Corporate Scum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328938</id>
	<title>By publisher for publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't it be better to be "by publishers for readers"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it be better to be " by publishers for readers " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it be better to be "by publishers for readers"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328232</id>
	<title>e-readers ARE publishers, not for/by publishers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just don't get it-- seems like the whole benefit of an e-reader is to remove the need for old-style publishers.<br>Authors, editors, reviewers, and users are still a requirement of course, but it seems like e-readers could just as easily be called e-publishers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get it-- seems like the whole benefit of an e-reader is to remove the need for old-style publishers.Authors , editors , reviewers , and users are still a requirement of course , but it seems like e-readers could just as easily be called e-publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get it-- seems like the whole benefit of an e-reader is to remove the need for old-style publishers.Authors, editors, reviewers, and users are still a requirement of course, but it seems like e-readers could just as easily be called e-publishers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327854</id>
	<title>Don't care. I'm boycotting it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259959980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Hearst Corporation was launched by the son of George Hearst - the heartless maniac who ordered the killings of multiple people on HBO's Deadwood miniseries.</p><p>Take your ebook reader and shove it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hearst Corporation was launched by the son of George Hearst - the heartless maniac who ordered the killings of multiple people on HBO 's Deadwood miniseries.Take your ebook reader and shove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hearst Corporation was launched by the son of George Hearst - the heartless maniac who ordered the killings of multiple people on HBO's Deadwood miniseries.Take your ebook reader and shove it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331574</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259935980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So are you saying the concerns addressed by old English laws are the same as the concerns we have today?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So are you saying the concerns addressed by old English laws are the same as the concerns we have today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are you saying the concerns addressed by old English laws are the same as the concerns we have today?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30332740</id>
	<title>boats?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what the hell do boats have to do with books?  someone must have been on a really boring fishing trip recently...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what the hell do boats have to do with books ?
someone must have been on a really boring fishing trip recently.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the hell do boats have to do with books?
someone must have been on a really boring fishing trip recently...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327830</id>
	<title>For who?</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1259959860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They appear to ahve mid-identified their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They appear to ahve mid-identified their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They appear to ahve mid-identified their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331428</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, where is the customer in this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259934780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>wtf does lateme mean?</htmltext>
<tokenext>wtf does lateme mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wtf does lateme mean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328994</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259921700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon is making a killing off of Kindle books and they're not passing that on to subsidize the price of the Kindle device. Without subsidies, they could sell that device for almost half and make a decent living on it. With subsidies, they could those suckers for $50 - easily.</p></div><p>I think part of the problem is that they can't make them fast enough to meet demand. This is just speculation based on the availability problems the Kindle has had, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. E-Ink displays aren't exactly a common consumer technology at the moment. When it does become common, and manufacturing issues are sorted out, you probably will see those kind of prices.</p><p>If you can't make enough to meet demand, why would you lower prices?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon is making a killing off of Kindle books and they 're not passing that on to subsidize the price of the Kindle device .
Without subsidies , they could sell that device for almost half and make a decent living on it .
With subsidies , they could those suckers for $ 50 - easily.I think part of the problem is that they ca n't make them fast enough to meet demand .
This is just speculation based on the availability problems the Kindle has had , but it would n't surprise me at all .
E-Ink displays are n't exactly a common consumer technology at the moment .
When it does become common , and manufacturing issues are sorted out , you probably will see those kind of prices.If you ca n't make enough to meet demand , why would you lower prices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon is making a killing off of Kindle books and they're not passing that on to subsidize the price of the Kindle device.
Without subsidies, they could sell that device for almost half and make a decent living on it.
With subsidies, they could those suckers for $50 - easily.I think part of the problem is that they can't make them fast enough to meet demand.
This is just speculation based on the availability problems the Kindle has had, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.
E-Ink displays aren't exactly a common consumer technology at the moment.
When it does become common, and manufacturing issues are sorted out, you probably will see those kind of prices.If you can't make enough to meet demand, why would you lower prices?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328520</id>
	<title>Advertising is clearly the endgame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote: <i>Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to maintain their distinct visual identities, build and extend relationships with subscribers</i></p><p>Translation: Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to mix advertisements within content and to shove said ads down the throats of their subscribers.</p><p>I agree that the Kindle is far from perfect, but I can't say I'm too excited for this Skiff thing either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to maintain their distinct visual identities , build and extend relationships with subscribersTranslation : Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to mix advertisements within content and to shove said ads down the throats of their subscribers.I agree that the Kindle is far from perfect , but I ca n't say I 'm too excited for this Skiff thing either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote: Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to maintain their distinct visual identities, build and extend relationships with subscribersTranslation: Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to mix advertisements within content and to shove said ads down the throats of their subscribers.I agree that the Kindle is far from perfect, but I can't say I'm too excited for this Skiff thing either.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Translates to: Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Are you so sure?  Alienating customers won't help publishers any, since they're where the money comes from.  I'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this, but I doubt that.  The fact is, both parties in any business transaction are participating for their own benefit; that doesn't preclude <i>rational</i> self interest, i.e. providing value, too.
</p><p>
So here is why this <i>might</i> work: Skiff eliminates a middleman, namely Amazon.  Thus consumers could end up paying less, while publishers (and even writers) get more.  You can go on all you like about how evil and stupid publishers are, but they're already part of the process; the only difference is, no Amazon.  What if Skiff ends up a lot like Kindle, but with a lower price for professionally written and edited content?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translates to : Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers .
Are you so sure ?
Alienating customers wo n't help publishers any , since they 're where the money comes from .
I 'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this , but I doubt that .
The fact is , both parties in any business transaction are participating for their own benefit ; that does n't preclude rational self interest , i.e .
providing value , too .
So here is why this might work : Skiff eliminates a middleman , namely Amazon .
Thus consumers could end up paying less , while publishers ( and even writers ) get more .
You can go on all you like about how evil and stupid publishers are , but they 're already part of the process ; the only difference is , no Amazon .
What if Skiff ends up a lot like Kindle , but with a lower price for professionally written and edited content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translates to: Screw the authors &amp; screw the customers.
Are you so sure?
Alienating customers won't help publishers any, since they're where the money comes from.
I'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this, but I doubt that.
The fact is, both parties in any business transaction are participating for their own benefit; that doesn't preclude rational self interest, i.e.
providing value, too.
So here is why this might work: Skiff eliminates a middleman, namely Amazon.
Thus consumers could end up paying less, while publishers (and even writers) get more.
You can go on all you like about how evil and stupid publishers are, but they're already part of the process; the only difference is, no Amazon.
What if Skiff ends up a lot like Kindle, but with a lower price for professionally written and edited content?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331274</id>
	<title>Yay! Another publisher is crying.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259933760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time for us, (meaning me) to stand up and say, "screw you publishers." When you can man up enough to offer something of substance, then you have something to offer. Another eReader with restrictive DRM. Go ahead and build it and see if anyone buys the damn thing.</p><p>Screw you publisher. You not screw us long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time for us , ( meaning me ) to stand up and say , " screw you publishers .
" When you can man up enough to offer something of substance , then you have something to offer .
Another eReader with restrictive DRM .
Go ahead and build it and see if anyone buys the damn thing.Screw you publisher .
You not screw us long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time for us, (meaning me) to stand up and say, "screw you publishers.
" When you can man up enough to offer something of substance, then you have something to offer.
Another eReader with restrictive DRM.
Go ahead and build it and see if anyone buys the damn thing.Screw you publisher.
You not screw us long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862</id>
	<title>great for publi$her$?</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1259959980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>More competition and new products entering the E-reader market? Awesome. I love it <br> <br>
If they think I'm still going to pay the price of a hardcover book for nothing but a digital copy that can be revoked from my reader, I'M STILL NOT BUYING THIS JUNK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More competition and new products entering the E-reader market ?
Awesome. I love it If they think I 'm still going to pay the price of a hardcover book for nothing but a digital copy that can be revoked from my reader , I 'M STILL NOT BUYING THIS JUNK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More competition and new products entering the E-reader market?
Awesome. I love it  
If they think I'm still going to pay the price of a hardcover book for nothing but a digital copy that can be revoked from my reader, I'M STILL NOT BUYING THIS JUNK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330430</id>
	<title>Another great idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259928180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Finally, an mp3 player by the RIAA for the RIAA"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Finally , an mp3 player by the RIAA for the RIAA "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Finally, an mp3 player by the RIAA for the RIAA"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328844</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>NecroPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1259921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Customers are not the primary source of income for publishers.</p><p>Ads are.</p><p>What this will be is Kindle--, now with extra ads.  Ads you can't skip.  Ads interrupting you every 60 seconds while reading a story.  Ads that pop up between stories and can't be avoided.</p><p>Did I mention the ads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Customers are not the primary source of income for publishers.Ads are.What this will be is Kindle-- , now with extra ads .
Ads you ca n't skip .
Ads interrupting you every 60 seconds while reading a story .
Ads that pop up between stories and ca n't be avoided.Did I mention the ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Customers are not the primary source of income for publishers.Ads are.What this will be is Kindle--, now with extra ads.
Ads you can't skip.
Ads interrupting you every 60 seconds while reading a story.
Ads that pop up between stories and can't be avoided.Did I mention the ads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329074</id>
	<title>Sounds nice...</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1259922060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>targeted ads, complete publisher control. Where can I pick mine up, and how much will I get paid per month to use it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>targeted ads , complete publisher control .
Where can I pick mine up , and how much will I get paid per month to use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>targeted ads, complete publisher control.
Where can I pick mine up, and how much will I get paid per month to use it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328880</id>
	<title>I don't see the problem.</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1259921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope a lot of publishers go and buy these things, they'll apparently be really happy with them.  I just hope they aren't expecting consumers to actually buy any.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope a lot of publishers go and buy these things , they 'll apparently be really happy with them .
I just hope they are n't expecting consumers to actually buy any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope a lot of publishers go and buy these things, they'll apparently be really happy with them.
I just hope they aren't expecting consumers to actually buy any.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330444</id>
	<title>Re:great for publisher$$$$?</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1259928360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my slightly offtopic rant for all you slashdotters that go on multi-paragraph tirades about personal pet peeves.
<br> <br>
Woop dee doo. I don't deem my own message all that important so I could care less if my $ signs are distracting from the overall message.
<br> <br> It's the internet, man. Can't we just have a little fun with it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my slightly offtopic rant for all you slashdotters that go on multi-paragraph tirades about personal pet peeves .
Woop dee doo .
I do n't deem my own message all that important so I could care less if my $ signs are distracting from the overall message .
It 's the internet , man .
Ca n't we just have a little fun with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my slightly offtopic rant for all you slashdotters that go on multi-paragraph tirades about personal pet peeves.
Woop dee doo.
I don't deem my own message all that important so I could care less if my $ signs are distracting from the overall message.
It's the internet, man.
Can't we just have a little fun with it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328624</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1259919960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amazon: that 70\% (gross) of the price of an <i>electronic</i> copy of a book that has an marginal cost approaching zero is just about all profit.</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure that amazon has to kick some cash over to the wireless carrier(Sprint) to cover whispernet. And maintenance on the servers, IT guys saleries, etc.  The biggest piece being the payment to Sprint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon : that 70 \ % ( gross ) of the price of an electronic copy of a book that has an marginal cost approaching zero is just about all profit.I 'm pretty sure that amazon has to kick some cash over to the wireless carrier ( Sprint ) to cover whispernet .
And maintenance on the servers , IT guys saleries , etc .
The biggest piece being the payment to Sprint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon: that 70\% (gross) of the price of an electronic copy of a book that has an marginal cost approaching zero is just about all profit.I'm pretty sure that amazon has to kick some cash over to the wireless carrier(Sprint) to cover whispernet.
And maintenance on the servers, IT guys saleries, etc.
The biggest piece being the payment to Sprint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329728</id>
	<title>By publishers for publishers?</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1259925120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they mean to suggeest that the only people who read papers and magazines are the people who publish them? If so this industry is in more trouble than I expected. Either way this is a moronic stance to take. Where does the customer come in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they mean to suggeest that the only people who read papers and magazines are the people who publish them ?
If so this industry is in more trouble than I expected .
Either way this is a moronic stance to take .
Where does the customer come in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they mean to suggeest that the only people who read papers and magazines are the people who publish them?
If so this industry is in more trouble than I expected.
Either way this is a moronic stance to take.
Where does the customer come in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327842</id>
	<title>"allow the easy injection of advertising"</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1259959920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say this skiff was dead in the water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say this skiff was dead in the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say this skiff was dead in the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328824</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259920980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, you need more coffee or something, or maybe I'm just not being clear. When I buy a paper magazine, I'm paying for paper and ink. The advertisers are paying for everything else. No paper and ink, either don't have ads or don't charge me.</p><p>For books, I've never bough a book with ads and I'm not about to start now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , you need more coffee or something , or maybe I 'm just not being clear .
When I buy a paper magazine , I 'm paying for paper and ink .
The advertisers are paying for everything else .
No paper and ink , either do n't have ads or do n't charge me.For books , I 've never bough a book with ads and I 'm not about to start now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, you need more coffee or something, or maybe I'm just not being clear.
When I buy a paper magazine, I'm paying for paper and ink.
The advertisers are paying for everything else.
No paper and ink, either don't have ads or don't charge me.For books, I've never bough a book with ads and I'm not about to start now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327886</id>
	<title>DRM</title>
	<author>eav</author>
	<datestamp>1259960100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if it has DRM I am not buying it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if it has DRM I am not buying it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if it has DRM I am not buying it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328594</id>
	<title>Canada?</title>
	<author>colesw</author>
	<datestamp>1259919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who ever releases a decent e-book reader in Canada with connectivity included will have my sale.

I want my global market place!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who ever releases a decent e-book reader in Canada with connectivity included will have my sale .
I want my global market place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who ever releases a decent e-book reader in Canada with connectivity included will have my sale.
I want my global market place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328426</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Captain Splendid</author>
	<datestamp>1259919180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Skiff eliminates a middleman, namely Amazon...</i> <br> <br>

Which is a worthless point since that elimination will not be passed on to the consumer in the form of "cheaper than Kindle".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skiff eliminates a middleman , namely Amazon.. . Which is a worthless point since that elimination will not be passed on to the consumer in the form of " cheaper than Kindle " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skiff eliminates a middleman, namely Amazon...  

Which is a worthless point since that elimination will not be passed on to the consumer in the form of "cheaper than Kindle".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328672</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, copyright was an agreement between publishers who wanted (previously not legally enforceable) price-fixing and the King of England wanting censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , copyright was an agreement between publishers who wanted ( previously not legally enforceable ) price-fixing and the King of England wanting censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, copyright was an agreement between publishers who wanted (previously not legally enforceable) price-fixing and the King of England wanting censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330386</id>
	<title>Digital Virgin Suicides</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1259927940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hearst Corporation announce the development of a Kindle type gadget publishers can use to publish their last will and testament, their memoirs and their suicide notes. <br>Rupert Murdoch is first to place an advance order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hearst Corporation announce the development of a Kindle type gadget publishers can use to publish their last will and testament , their memoirs and their suicide notes .
Rupert Murdoch is first to place an advance order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hearst Corporation announce the development of a Kindle type gadget publishers can use to publish their last will and testament, their memoirs and their suicide notes.
Rupert Murdoch is first to place an advance order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328276</id>
	<title>I PREDICT...</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1259918700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...<b>EPIC FAIL</b>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>...EPIC FAIL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...EPIC FAIL...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328338</id>
	<title>Why not...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a PattyPad ? to soon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a PattyPad ?
to soon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a PattyPad ?
to soon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330208</id>
	<title>Hearst? Such nice people! (sarcasm)</title>
	<author>DadLeopard</author>
	<datestamp>1259927040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet this thing is going to be locked down tighter than Fort Knox! They will probably bring out their own DRM scheme to be sure that you will have to re-buy anything that you already have in ebook versions from anyone else! I'll stick with a device that supports as many Open formats as I can get, thus enabling me to shop around for the best content at the best prices! Right now use a Sony prs505 with Ubuntu linux and Calibre for a library organizer and ebook converter!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet this thing is going to be locked down tighter than Fort Knox !
They will probably bring out their own DRM scheme to be sure that you will have to re-buy anything that you already have in ebook versions from anyone else !
I 'll stick with a device that supports as many Open formats as I can get , thus enabling me to shop around for the best content at the best prices !
Right now use a Sony prs505 with Ubuntu linux and Calibre for a library organizer and ebook converter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet this thing is going to be locked down tighter than Fort Knox!
They will probably bring out their own DRM scheme to be sure that you will have to re-buy anything that you already have in ebook versions from anyone else!
I'll stick with a device that supports as many Open formats as I can get, thus enabling me to shop around for the best content at the best prices!
Right now use a Sony prs505 with Ubuntu linux and Calibre for a library organizer and ebook converter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329164</id>
	<title>Re:great for publishers?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259922420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Calling Microsoft employees or users Microserfs</p></div><p>Has this actually happened on slashdot since 1999?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Calling Microsoft employees or users MicroserfsHas this actually happened on slashdot since 1999 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Calling Microsoft employees or users MicroserfsHas this actually happened on slashdot since 1999?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328388</id>
	<title>So long</title>
	<author>ewe2</author>
	<datestamp>1259919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*waves goodbye*</p><p>In other news, publishers get their priorities right: <a href="http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/12/at\_the\_dallas\_news\_the\_latest.php" title="dallasobserver.com">At The Dallas News, a New "Bold Strategy": Section Editors Reporting to Sales Managers</a> [dallasobserver.com] Says it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* waves goodbye * In other news , publishers get their priorities right : At The Dallas News , a New " Bold Strategy " : Section Editors Reporting to Sales Managers [ dallasobserver.com ] Says it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*waves goodbye*In other news, publishers get their priorities right: At The Dallas News, a New "Bold Strategy": Section Editors Reporting to Sales Managers [dallasobserver.com] Says it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904</id>
	<title>Hmm, where is the customer in this?</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1259960160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Kindle for all its annoyances attempts to be as customer centric as possible.</p><p>But this, "publisher centric" model seems really l8me...  EG, advertisements built into the fabric?</p><p>Mystery, unavailable devices?</p><p>An over-leveraged print empire driving it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Kindle for all its annoyances attempts to be as customer centric as possible.But this , " publisher centric " model seems really l8me... EG , advertisements built into the fabric ? Mystery , unavailable devices ? An over-leveraged print empire driving it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Kindle for all its annoyances attempts to be as customer centric as possible.But this, "publisher centric" model seems really l8me...  EG, advertisements built into the fabric?Mystery, unavailable devices?An over-leveraged print empire driving it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328924</id>
	<title>Delivering a Press release is easy</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1259921460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Delivering a product is hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Delivering a product is hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delivering a product is hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327986</id>
	<title>Even worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259917320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The unit has two spikes that can deploy on command/DRM violation, rendering the user blind.</p><p>But it does have a nice display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unit has two spikes that can deploy on command/DRM violation , rendering the user blind.But it does have a nice display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unit has two spikes that can deploy on command/DRM violation, rendering the user blind.But it does have a nice display.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328856</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1259921100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Skiff eliminates Amazon, to be replaced with itself. This is just Hearst wanting a piece of Amazon's pie, and they think that appealing to the content distributors is going to be the way to produce a better product... yeah, I'm not following either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Skiff eliminates Amazon , to be replaced with itself .
This is just Hearst wanting a piece of Amazon 's pie , and they think that appealing to the content distributors is going to be the way to produce a better product... yeah , I 'm not following either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Skiff eliminates Amazon, to be replaced with itself.
This is just Hearst wanting a piece of Amazon's pie, and they think that appealing to the content distributors is going to be the way to produce a better product... yeah, I'm not following either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327918</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1259960220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Executive Summary: We are out of our frigging minds and don't realize this is going to bomb faster than the orginal DIVX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Executive Summary : We are out of our frigging minds and do n't realize this is going to bomb faster than the orginal DIVX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Executive Summary: We are out of our frigging minds and don't realize this is going to bomb faster than the orginal DIVX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328892</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259921280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can go on all you like about how evil and stupid publishers are,</p> </div><p>Yes, we can.</p><p>I'm not so sure about evil, but most publishers really are fucking stupid. Not just slightly dumb, but so stupid you wonder how they put on their shoes in the morning. Which makes it unsurprising that they would fall for a plan like "Skiff." I can just see them ooohhhing and aaahhhing at the Powerpoint presentation and the fancy buzzwords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go on all you like about how evil and stupid publishers are , Yes , we can.I 'm not so sure about evil , but most publishers really are fucking stupid .
Not just slightly dumb , but so stupid you wonder how they put on their shoes in the morning .
Which makes it unsurprising that they would fall for a plan like " Skiff .
" I can just see them ooohhhing and aaahhhing at the Powerpoint presentation and the fancy buzzwords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go on all you like about how evil and stupid publishers are, Yes, we can.I'm not so sure about evil, but most publishers really are fucking stupid.
Not just slightly dumb, but so stupid you wonder how they put on their shoes in the morning.
Which makes it unsurprising that they would fall for a plan like "Skiff.
" I can just see them ooohhhing and aaahhhing at the Powerpoint presentation and the fancy buzzwords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331928</id>
	<title>Publisher gizmo</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259938980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is "by publishers for publishers", only people who will buy it are publishers themselves. E.g. Dan Brown's manager.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is " by publishers for publishers " , only people who will buy it are publishers themselves .
E.g. Dan Brown 's manager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is "by publishers for publishers", only people who will buy it are publishers themselves.
E.g. Dan Brown's manager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328846</id>
	<title>What timeOday Said Plus....</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1259921040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of you are perfectly okay with companies treating their customers like cr@p.  It's called the entertainment industry.</p><p>Bluray is even worse than the DVD in terms of limiting your clearly defined rights to personal use and dramatically raising the costs of entertainment.  How many of you are loading up on those BluRay players/content this holiday season?  You are happy about it too.</p><p>I think the basic notion that this will fail is right.  It will fail because they will seek to extract similar profits AND lard on costs so early into the project that it won't ever have a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of you are perfectly okay with companies treating their customers like cr @ p. It 's called the entertainment industry.Bluray is even worse than the DVD in terms of limiting your clearly defined rights to personal use and dramatically raising the costs of entertainment .
How many of you are loading up on those BluRay players/content this holiday season ?
You are happy about it too.I think the basic notion that this will fail is right .
It will fail because they will seek to extract similar profits AND lard on costs so early into the project that it wo n't ever have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of you are perfectly okay with companies treating their customers like cr@p.  It's called the entertainment industry.Bluray is even worse than the DVD in terms of limiting your clearly defined rights to personal use and dramatically raising the costs of entertainment.
How many of you are loading up on those BluRay players/content this holiday season?
You are happy about it too.I think the basic notion that this will fail is right.
It will fail because they will seek to extract similar profits AND lard on costs so early into the project that it won't ever have a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331528</id>
	<title>Publishers are media companies</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1259935560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you so sure?  Alienating customers won't help publishers any, since they're where the money comes from. </p></div><p>Yeah, and cable TV, internet and mobile subscribers are where the money comes from, so obviously providers in those industries would <i>never</i> do anything to screw their customers.  Business transactions, <i>rational</i> self interest, providing value and all that good stuff.</p><p>I worked in the book industry for 7 years that spanned the short-lived Rocket eBook generation of electronic books.  I can assure you that the majority of publishers I worked with (my employer represented more than 100 independent publishers) would have laughed you out of the room with that "providing value" nonsense.  Book publishers are no different than record or film companies, they just work on thinner margins taken from smaller revenues.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So here is why this might work: Skiff eliminates a middleman, namely Amazon. Thus consumers could end up paying less, while publishers (and even writers) get more.</p></div><p>What on earth makes you think that prices are based on the layers of middle-men (or any other cost)?  Good grief!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you so sure ?
Alienating customers wo n't help publishers any , since they 're where the money comes from .
Yeah , and cable TV , internet and mobile subscribers are where the money comes from , so obviously providers in those industries would never do anything to screw their customers .
Business transactions , rational self interest , providing value and all that good stuff.I worked in the book industry for 7 years that spanned the short-lived Rocket eBook generation of electronic books .
I can assure you that the majority of publishers I worked with ( my employer represented more than 100 independent publishers ) would have laughed you out of the room with that " providing value " nonsense .
Book publishers are no different than record or film companies , they just work on thinner margins taken from smaller revenues.So here is why this might work : Skiff eliminates a middleman , namely Amazon .
Thus consumers could end up paying less , while publishers ( and even writers ) get more.What on earth makes you think that prices are based on the layers of middle-men ( or any other cost ) ?
Good grief !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you so sure?
Alienating customers won't help publishers any, since they're where the money comes from.
Yeah, and cable TV, internet and mobile subscribers are where the money comes from, so obviously providers in those industries would never do anything to screw their customers.
Business transactions, rational self interest, providing value and all that good stuff.I worked in the book industry for 7 years that spanned the short-lived Rocket eBook generation of electronic books.
I can assure you that the majority of publishers I worked with (my employer represented more than 100 independent publishers) would have laughed you out of the room with that "providing value" nonsense.
Book publishers are no different than record or film companies, they just work on thinner margins taken from smaller revenues.So here is why this might work: Skiff eliminates a middleman, namely Amazon.
Thus consumers could end up paying less, while publishers (and even writers) get more.What on earth makes you think that prices are based on the layers of middle-men (or any other cost)?
Good grief!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329248</id>
	<title>ummm no</title>
	<author>Is0m0rph</author>
	<datestamp>1259922720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another expensive ebook reader.  I'll stick to my 7" Chinese Chuwi M70 PMP.  No it's not e-ink but I don't care for e-ink anyways.  I don't need any proprietary formats or DRM either.   I want a adjustable brightness/contrast back lit ebook reader (text format) which my Chuwi does flawlessly and plays most music formats and HD videos as a bonus.  I don't have to worry about my connected device deleting paid for books at the command of a publisher either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another expensive ebook reader .
I 'll stick to my 7 " Chinese Chuwi M70 PMP .
No it 's not e-ink but I do n't care for e-ink anyways .
I do n't need any proprietary formats or DRM either .
I want a adjustable brightness/contrast back lit ebook reader ( text format ) which my Chuwi does flawlessly and plays most music formats and HD videos as a bonus .
I do n't have to worry about my connected device deleting paid for books at the command of a publisher either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another expensive ebook reader.
I'll stick to my 7" Chinese Chuwi M70 PMP.
No it's not e-ink but I don't care for e-ink anyways.
I don't need any proprietary formats or DRM either.
I want a adjustable brightness/contrast back lit ebook reader (text format) which my Chuwi does flawlessly and plays most music formats and HD videos as a bonus.
I don't have to worry about my connected device deleting paid for books at the command of a publisher either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328274</id>
	<title>Because, of course...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1259918640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the publishers are the reason it all exists.  Long live the middleman!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the publishers are the reason it all exists .
Long live the middleman !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the publishers are the reason it all exists.
Long live the middleman!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329514</id>
	<title>Re:Crash</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1259924100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and BURN baby....burn!</p></div><p>You bring up a good point.. How are we supposed to have a good, Fahrenheit 451 style book burning, with E-books?</p><p>they require way too many accelerants to burn with the same intensity!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and BURN baby....burn ! You bring up a good point.. How are we supposed to have a good , Fahrenheit 451 style book burning , with E-books ? they require way too many accelerants to burn with the same intensity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and BURN baby....burn!You bring up a good point.. How are we supposed to have a good, Fahrenheit 451 style book burning, with E-books?they require way too many accelerants to burn with the same intensity!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328572</id>
	<title>Why Should I Buy It?</title>
	<author>Rycross</author>
	<datestamp>1259919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, why should I buy a product designed with the publishers' interests in mind over a product with the customers' interests in mind?  I don't particularly care about the publishers' interests, but I do care about mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , why should I buy a product designed with the publishers ' interests in mind over a product with the customers ' interests in mind ?
I do n't particularly care about the publishers ' interests , but I do care about mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, why should I buy a product designed with the publishers' interests in mind over a product with the customers' interests in mind?
I don't particularly care about the publishers' interests, but I do care about mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30345454</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1260090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Charging a price close to a paper book for an electronic book just seams wrong to me - one of the largest costs of a printed book is its paper and ink.</p></div><p>Your average book costs less than $2 to make in quantity.  It might cost another $0.50 to ship it in a box with 20 others just like it.</p><p>You are completely wrong about the costs in the publishing business.  Most of the cost is editing and promotion.  The author gets a small bit and yes, the bookseller gets to add somewhere between 50\% and 100\% markup.</p><p>Now, I suppose you might be able to sell a book for $1 if there was no editing and no promotion.  But it would be mostly unreadable garbage.  I can find you some web sites where they have plenty of those sorts of books.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charging a price close to a paper book for an electronic book just seams wrong to me - one of the largest costs of a printed book is its paper and ink.Your average book costs less than $ 2 to make in quantity .
It might cost another $ 0.50 to ship it in a box with 20 others just like it.You are completely wrong about the costs in the publishing business .
Most of the cost is editing and promotion .
The author gets a small bit and yes , the bookseller gets to add somewhere between 50 \ % and 100 \ % markup.Now , I suppose you might be able to sell a book for $ 1 if there was no editing and no promotion .
But it would be mostly unreadable garbage .
I can find you some web sites where they have plenty of those sorts of books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charging a price close to a paper book for an electronic book just seams wrong to me - one of the largest costs of a printed book is its paper and ink.Your average book costs less than $2 to make in quantity.
It might cost another $0.50 to ship it in a box with 20 others just like it.You are completely wrong about the costs in the publishing business.
Most of the cost is editing and promotion.
The author gets a small bit and yes, the bookseller gets to add somewhere between 50\% and 100\% markup.Now, I suppose you might be able to sell a book for $1 if there was no editing and no promotion.
But it would be mostly unreadable garbage.
I can find you some web sites where they have plenty of those sorts of books.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30333508</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1260006000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several paperback books in the mid-70's had ads bound into the middle of the books.<br>
&nbsp; <br>They were printed on a similar cardboard to the book cover, but were generally not glossy like the cover might have been.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Unfortunately, due to the stiffness of the cardboard, the book tended to split in half and fall apart even more easily than "regular" paperbacks did.<br>
&nbsp; <br>As far as the advertising content, I think most of them were cigarette ads, but I haven't seen one for so long I'm not entirely sure any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several paperback books in the mid-70 's had ads bound into the middle of the books .
  They were printed on a similar cardboard to the book cover , but were generally not glossy like the cover might have been .
  Unfortunately , due to the stiffness of the cardboard , the book tended to split in half and fall apart even more easily than " regular " paperbacks did .
  As far as the advertising content , I think most of them were cigarette ads , but I have n't seen one for so long I 'm not entirely sure any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several paperback books in the mid-70's had ads bound into the middle of the books.
  They were printed on a similar cardboard to the book cover, but were generally not glossy like the cover might have been.
  Unfortunately, due to the stiffness of the cardboard, the book tended to split in half and fall apart even more easily than "regular" paperbacks did.
  As far as the advertising content, I think most of them were cigarette ads, but I haven't seen one for so long I'm not entirely sure any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331154</id>
	<title>Re:Advertising is clearly the endgame</title>
	<author>JohnBailey</author>
	<datestamp>1259932920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Translation: Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to mix advertisements within content and to shove said ads down the throats of their subscribers.

I agree that the Kindle is far from perfect, but I can't say I'm too excited for this Skiff thing either.</p></div><p>Didn't Amazon take out a patent on inserting advertising in books recently?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to mix advertisements within content and to shove said ads down the throats of their subscribers .
I agree that the Kindle is far from perfect , but I ca n't say I 'm too excited for this Skiff thing either.Did n't Amazon take out a patent on inserting advertising in books recently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: Skiff gives periodical publishers tools to mix advertisements within content and to shove said ads down the throats of their subscribers.
I agree that the Kindle is far from perfect, but I can't say I'm too excited for this Skiff thing either.Didn't Amazon take out a patent on inserting advertising in books recently?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328562</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm, where is the customer in this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> l8me</p></div><p>Mod parent down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>l8meMod parent down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> l8meMod parent down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328976</id>
	<title>First Marijuana now this!!???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259921700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weren't they happy enough with lobbying for banning Marijuana, and now THIS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't they happy enough with lobbying for banning Marijuana , and now THIS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't they happy enough with lobbying for banning Marijuana, and now THIS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328854</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259921100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you so sure? Alienating customers won't help publishers any, since they're where the money comes from.</i></p><p>Works for anybody with a monopoly.  Since they will have exclusive rights to a lot of content, they'll be able to screw anybody who really wants access to that content.</p><p><i>What if Skiff ends up a lot like Kindle, but with a lower price for professionally written and edited content?</i></p><p>What if all men just united in brotherly love, lost their selfish instincts, and peace reigned on earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you so sure ?
Alienating customers wo n't help publishers any , since they 're where the money comes from.Works for anybody with a monopoly .
Since they will have exclusive rights to a lot of content , they 'll be able to screw anybody who really wants access to that content.What if Skiff ends up a lot like Kindle , but with a lower price for professionally written and edited content ? What if all men just united in brotherly love , lost their selfish instincts , and peace reigned on earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you so sure?
Alienating customers won't help publishers any, since they're where the money comes from.Works for anybody with a monopoly.
Since they will have exclusive rights to a lot of content, they'll be able to screw anybody who really wants access to that content.What if Skiff ends up a lot like Kindle, but with a lower price for professionally written and edited content?What if all men just united in brotherly love, lost their selfish instincts, and peace reigned on earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30333110</id>
	<title>hard to get more publisher friendly than Kindle</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1259954820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazon apparently makes small margins on their ebooks (and in some cases take a loss when a user makes a wireless purchase). The profits mostly go towards the publishers because Amazon wanted to sign up so many of them so quickly they didn't negotiate well. I think what publishers are realizing is that when it's time to negotiate future deals with Amazon that they will be in deep doo-doo. Gravy train is over for publishers, and they are scrambling to get back the deal by building a platform and infrastructure. Something that took Amazon and its competitors 3.5 years to build from the ground up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon apparently makes small margins on their ebooks ( and in some cases take a loss when a user makes a wireless purchase ) .
The profits mostly go towards the publishers because Amazon wanted to sign up so many of them so quickly they did n't negotiate well .
I think what publishers are realizing is that when it 's time to negotiate future deals with Amazon that they will be in deep doo-doo .
Gravy train is over for publishers , and they are scrambling to get back the deal by building a platform and infrastructure .
Something that took Amazon and its competitors 3.5 years to build from the ground up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon apparently makes small margins on their ebooks (and in some cases take a loss when a user makes a wireless purchase).
The profits mostly go towards the publishers because Amazon wanted to sign up so many of them so quickly they didn't negotiate well.
I think what publishers are realizing is that when it's time to negotiate future deals with Amazon that they will be in deep doo-doo.
Gravy train is over for publishers, and they are scrambling to get back the deal by building a platform and infrastructure.
Something that took Amazon and its competitors 3.5 years to build from the ground up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329182</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1259922480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is great in theory, but not how it works in practice.</p><p>In practice, publishers are terrified, because they make all their money in hardbacks.  But nobody except for a few freaks (the "I'll never touch a paper book again!" crowd) is actually willing to pay hardback prices for an e-book.  eBooks are a much better natural competitor to mass market paperbacks.</p><p>Well, okay, that's great, but why not just sell the ebook for cheaper?  Amazon would love to.  The problem is that the cost to print and bind an individual book (the unit cost) is pennies.  Most of the price of a book is in the fixed (i.e. not-per-unit), upfront cost of editing, putting the files together, and (the big one) marketing.  (And that's not just subway ads.  It's mainly marketing to bookstores, and to the TINY HANDFUL of buyers who actually get to decide what books Borders and Barnes &amp; Noble carry, and thus what Americans read.)<br>Publishers cannot cope with this.  Their business will collapse if they release ebooks at the same time as hardcovers, because the ebook would horrifically undercut their hardcover margins.  But they cannot afford to set a market expectation that an ebook costs a reasonable (i.e. under-$15) amount.  They cannot afford to do anything that discourages people from buying hardcovers; why cannibalize your own business?  And they will not get fully behind the ebook platform so long as that fundamental logic stays the same.</p><p>That's for book publishers, anyway, which is what the parent was about.  From TFS, it sounds like this is as much about the newspaper and magazine business, who seem to think that people will magically want to pay for their content if you put it on e-paper instead of the e-, er, internet.  GLWT, lemme know how it works out, I'll just be over here browsing the real web from my smartphone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great in theory , but not how it works in practice.In practice , publishers are terrified , because they make all their money in hardbacks .
But nobody except for a few freaks ( the " I 'll never touch a paper book again !
" crowd ) is actually willing to pay hardback prices for an e-book .
eBooks are a much better natural competitor to mass market paperbacks.Well , okay , that 's great , but why not just sell the ebook for cheaper ?
Amazon would love to .
The problem is that the cost to print and bind an individual book ( the unit cost ) is pennies .
Most of the price of a book is in the fixed ( i.e .
not-per-unit ) , upfront cost of editing , putting the files together , and ( the big one ) marketing .
( And that 's not just subway ads .
It 's mainly marketing to bookstores , and to the TINY HANDFUL of buyers who actually get to decide what books Borders and Barnes &amp; Noble carry , and thus what Americans read .
) Publishers can not cope with this .
Their business will collapse if they release ebooks at the same time as hardcovers , because the ebook would horrifically undercut their hardcover margins .
But they can not afford to set a market expectation that an ebook costs a reasonable ( i.e .
under- $ 15 ) amount .
They can not afford to do anything that discourages people from buying hardcovers ; why cannibalize your own business ?
And they will not get fully behind the ebook platform so long as that fundamental logic stays the same.That 's for book publishers , anyway , which is what the parent was about .
From TFS , it sounds like this is as much about the newspaper and magazine business , who seem to think that people will magically want to pay for their content if you put it on e-paper instead of the e- , er , internet .
GLWT , lem me know how it works out , I 'll just be over here browsing the real web from my smartphone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great in theory, but not how it works in practice.In practice, publishers are terrified, because they make all their money in hardbacks.
But nobody except for a few freaks (the "I'll never touch a paper book again!
" crowd) is actually willing to pay hardback prices for an e-book.
eBooks are a much better natural competitor to mass market paperbacks.Well, okay, that's great, but why not just sell the ebook for cheaper?
Amazon would love to.
The problem is that the cost to print and bind an individual book (the unit cost) is pennies.
Most of the price of a book is in the fixed (i.e.
not-per-unit), upfront cost of editing, putting the files together, and (the big one) marketing.
(And that's not just subway ads.
It's mainly marketing to bookstores, and to the TINY HANDFUL of buyers who actually get to decide what books Borders and Barnes &amp; Noble carry, and thus what Americans read.
)Publishers cannot cope with this.
Their business will collapse if they release ebooks at the same time as hardcovers, because the ebook would horrifically undercut their hardcover margins.
But they cannot afford to set a market expectation that an ebook costs a reasonable (i.e.
under-$15) amount.
They cannot afford to do anything that discourages people from buying hardcovers; why cannibalize your own business?
And they will not get fully behind the ebook platform so long as that fundamental logic stays the same.That's for book publishers, anyway, which is what the parent was about.
From TFS, it sounds like this is as much about the newspaper and magazine business, who seem to think that people will magically want to pay for their content if you put it on e-paper instead of the e-, er, internet.
GLWT, lemme know how it works out, I'll just be over here browsing the real web from my smartphone...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329864</id>
	<title>Hearst Corporation!  Sound like a job for...</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1259925720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a job for... the Symbionese Liberation Army!<p>(Those who wish to mark this off-topic are respectfully invited to get off my lawn!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a job for... the Symbionese Liberation Army !
( Those who wish to mark this off-topic are respectfully invited to get off my lawn !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a job for... the Symbionese Liberation Army!
(Those who wish to mark this off-topic are respectfully invited to get off my lawn!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30336858</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260041340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The problem is that the cost to print and bind an individual book (the unit cost) is pennies."</p><p>You don't work in the publishing industry, nor do you run a business.</p><p>There is cost of the printed book, very true--and it's more than pennies considering salaries, equipment, heat, etc.  Still, you are right in a way, it's not much, like $1-3 for the typical book depending on quality of materials and ink.</p><p>Then there is warehousing and distribution, which will add a few more dollars.  Not much, but not cheap.</p><p>What you are overlooking is the grey market book area.  Printed books have to be sold, destroyed, or taxed.  Sold is obvious.  Destroyed isn't--they pay recyclers to get rid of excess inventory.  A lot of these recyclers simply get rid of the books, including selling off supply or "losing" them, which cuts massively into sales, since they simply hand of destruction papers without actually destroying the books outright.  (Later, I put this on level ground with piracy of ebooks to level things off, so you can overlook this issue if you want.)</p><p>Worse, if the publisher doesn't destroy books, that inventory is taxed at retail value every quarter.</p><p>With ebooks, certainly you have piracy concerns and all that, but you don't have quarterly maintenance, inventory and accounting, and tax liability to deal with.  You don't pay for warehousing, distribution, etc. to the same extent as with ebooks.</p><p>The publishers holding out on ebooks will and are missing opportunities.  Even semi-popular niche authors, like William Gibson, has a publisher or two who refuses to publish a couple of his titles in ebook format; I simply don't purchase them, and have used the money for something else, usually targetting away from publisher (Random House usually).</p><p>"They cannot afford to do anything that discourages people from buying hardcovers; why cannibalize your own business?"</p><p>However, the book industry had/has been going downhill for quite some time.  People were not buying books, hardcovers included.  In fact, books in a way were become niche by themselves.</p><p>The reason was those hardcovers that cost $19-30.  You can buy video game, couple DVDs or Blu-Ray, *go* to the movies, buy 3 months of Crunchyroll, or have a decent meal out, for cheaper than that hardcover.  People were spending their money elsewhere already.  The people who cannibalize an industry is usually always the industry holdouts, who complain as they ream themselves.</p><p>Further, sure, they don't want to cannibalize their own business, but the publishers that go under the $15 and $10 a book mark will sell more, and readers that adopt the (still) expensive ebook readers may also be inclined to try that $2-5 a pop book and find an author that has cut out a publisher entirely.  iow, the high end publisher has been entirely sidestepped.</p><p>The successful publisher will release all their books in every format imaginable, and in a ready and timely fashion, and will be rewarded for it.  This is why many ebooks on the NYT bestseller list sell on the Sony and Amazon store.</p><p>Note, multi-format release of titles is not the end all or be all.  For example, O'Reilly, which refused/s to sell their ebooks much less than list price of the physical book (and thus are $10-12 more than what Amazon sells their physical books \_shipped\_ to the customer), will still sell their books, because of their quality of editing and content and reputation.  However, even there, while I was an O'Reilly fan, I've already looked elsewhere for my technical books and found them to be satisfactory alternatives, instead of paying full price for an ebook when I could buy the softback for cheaper--I can't carry a library, and I'm one of the few who dislike Safari.  Saving a couple of hundred a year going to another publisher is worth it for me, and the content, while O'Reilly is superior, is not that far off.  Then again, Timmy hasn't been too smart about the whole ebook thing then or now, he just doesn't realize he's been missing out because publishers, in general, cannibalize their own business.  He's content in owning his business, controlling it, not maxing the potential out.  Any author or publisher who does otherwise usually does better in the business world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The problem is that the cost to print and bind an individual book ( the unit cost ) is pennies .
" You do n't work in the publishing industry , nor do you run a business.There is cost of the printed book , very true--and it 's more than pennies considering salaries , equipment , heat , etc .
Still , you are right in a way , it 's not much , like $ 1-3 for the typical book depending on quality of materials and ink.Then there is warehousing and distribution , which will add a few more dollars .
Not much , but not cheap.What you are overlooking is the grey market book area .
Printed books have to be sold , destroyed , or taxed .
Sold is obvious .
Destroyed is n't--they pay recyclers to get rid of excess inventory .
A lot of these recyclers simply get rid of the books , including selling off supply or " losing " them , which cuts massively into sales , since they simply hand of destruction papers without actually destroying the books outright .
( Later , I put this on level ground with piracy of ebooks to level things off , so you can overlook this issue if you want .
) Worse , if the publisher does n't destroy books , that inventory is taxed at retail value every quarter.With ebooks , certainly you have piracy concerns and all that , but you do n't have quarterly maintenance , inventory and accounting , and tax liability to deal with .
You do n't pay for warehousing , distribution , etc .
to the same extent as with ebooks.The publishers holding out on ebooks will and are missing opportunities .
Even semi-popular niche authors , like William Gibson , has a publisher or two who refuses to publish a couple of his titles in ebook format ; I simply do n't purchase them , and have used the money for something else , usually targetting away from publisher ( Random House usually ) .
" They can not afford to do anything that discourages people from buying hardcovers ; why cannibalize your own business ?
" However , the book industry had/has been going downhill for quite some time .
People were not buying books , hardcovers included .
In fact , books in a way were become niche by themselves.The reason was those hardcovers that cost $ 19-30 .
You can buy video game , couple DVDs or Blu-Ray , * go * to the movies , buy 3 months of Crunchyroll , or have a decent meal out , for cheaper than that hardcover .
People were spending their money elsewhere already .
The people who cannibalize an industry is usually always the industry holdouts , who complain as they ream themselves.Further , sure , they do n't want to cannibalize their own business , but the publishers that go under the $ 15 and $ 10 a book mark will sell more , and readers that adopt the ( still ) expensive ebook readers may also be inclined to try that $ 2-5 a pop book and find an author that has cut out a publisher entirely .
iow , the high end publisher has been entirely sidestepped.The successful publisher will release all their books in every format imaginable , and in a ready and timely fashion , and will be rewarded for it .
This is why many ebooks on the NYT bestseller list sell on the Sony and Amazon store.Note , multi-format release of titles is not the end all or be all .
For example , O'Reilly , which refused/s to sell their ebooks much less than list price of the physical book ( and thus are $ 10-12 more than what Amazon sells their physical books \ _shipped \ _ to the customer ) , will still sell their books , because of their quality of editing and content and reputation .
However , even there , while I was an O'Reilly fan , I 've already looked elsewhere for my technical books and found them to be satisfactory alternatives , instead of paying full price for an ebook when I could buy the softback for cheaper--I ca n't carry a library , and I 'm one of the few who dislike Safari .
Saving a couple of hundred a year going to another publisher is worth it for me , and the content , while O'Reilly is superior , is not that far off .
Then again , Timmy has n't been too smart about the whole ebook thing then or now , he just does n't realize he 's been missing out because publishers , in general , cannibalize their own business .
He 's content in owning his business , controlling it , not maxing the potential out .
Any author or publisher who does otherwise usually does better in the business world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The problem is that the cost to print and bind an individual book (the unit cost) is pennies.
"You don't work in the publishing industry, nor do you run a business.There is cost of the printed book, very true--and it's more than pennies considering salaries, equipment, heat, etc.
Still, you are right in a way, it's not much, like $1-3 for the typical book depending on quality of materials and ink.Then there is warehousing and distribution, which will add a few more dollars.
Not much, but not cheap.What you are overlooking is the grey market book area.
Printed books have to be sold, destroyed, or taxed.
Sold is obvious.
Destroyed isn't--they pay recyclers to get rid of excess inventory.
A lot of these recyclers simply get rid of the books, including selling off supply or "losing" them, which cuts massively into sales, since they simply hand of destruction papers without actually destroying the books outright.
(Later, I put this on level ground with piracy of ebooks to level things off, so you can overlook this issue if you want.
)Worse, if the publisher doesn't destroy books, that inventory is taxed at retail value every quarter.With ebooks, certainly you have piracy concerns and all that, but you don't have quarterly maintenance, inventory and accounting, and tax liability to deal with.
You don't pay for warehousing, distribution, etc.
to the same extent as with ebooks.The publishers holding out on ebooks will and are missing opportunities.
Even semi-popular niche authors, like William Gibson, has a publisher or two who refuses to publish a couple of his titles in ebook format; I simply don't purchase them, and have used the money for something else, usually targetting away from publisher (Random House usually).
"They cannot afford to do anything that discourages people from buying hardcovers; why cannibalize your own business?
"However, the book industry had/has been going downhill for quite some time.
People were not buying books, hardcovers included.
In fact, books in a way were become niche by themselves.The reason was those hardcovers that cost $19-30.
You can buy video game, couple DVDs or Blu-Ray, *go* to the movies, buy 3 months of Crunchyroll, or have a decent meal out, for cheaper than that hardcover.
People were spending their money elsewhere already.
The people who cannibalize an industry is usually always the industry holdouts, who complain as they ream themselves.Further, sure, they don't want to cannibalize their own business, but the publishers that go under the $15 and $10 a book mark will sell more, and readers that adopt the (still) expensive ebook readers may also be inclined to try that $2-5 a pop book and find an author that has cut out a publisher entirely.
iow, the high end publisher has been entirely sidestepped.The successful publisher will release all their books in every format imaginable, and in a ready and timely fashion, and will be rewarded for it.
This is why many ebooks on the NYT bestseller list sell on the Sony and Amazon store.Note, multi-format release of titles is not the end all or be all.
For example, O'Reilly, which refused/s to sell their ebooks much less than list price of the physical book (and thus are $10-12 more than what Amazon sells their physical books \_shipped\_ to the customer), will still sell their books, because of their quality of editing and content and reputation.
However, even there, while I was an O'Reilly fan, I've already looked elsewhere for my technical books and found them to be satisfactory alternatives, instead of paying full price for an ebook when I could buy the softback for cheaper--I can't carry a library, and I'm one of the few who dislike Safari.
Saving a couple of hundred a year going to another publisher is worth it for me, and the content, while O'Reilly is superior, is not that far off.
Then again, Timmy hasn't been too smart about the whole ebook thing then or now, he just doesn't realize he's been missing out because publishers, in general, cannibalize their own business.
He's content in owning his business, controlling it, not maxing the potential out.
Any author or publisher who does otherwise usually does better in the business world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328692</id>
	<title>Re:Publisher friendly?</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1259920320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this, but I doubt that.</i></p><p>Does success mean "not alienating?"  All of these successful DRM practices alienate customers, it's just that there's enough who are disinterested to make up for it.  I give the example of audio cassettes which, despite opposition by recording companies, not only gave them a new outlet for their music, but made vinyl MORE worthwhile because the consumer had more options.  Ditto video cassettes... they whined and whined until they found out they had a whole new revenue stream, at which point they were making more money than ever.</p><p>Are they shooting themselves in the foot?  I don't know, maybe not, maybe it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I really don't believe it's naive to distrust publishers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this , but I doubt that.Does success mean " not alienating ?
" All of these successful DRM practices alienate customers , it 's just that there 's enough who are disinterested to make up for it .
I give the example of audio cassettes which , despite opposition by recording companies , not only gave them a new outlet for their music , but made vinyl MORE worthwhile because the consumer had more options .
Ditto video cassettes... they whined and whined until they found out they had a whole new revenue stream , at which point they were making more money than ever.Are they shooting themselves in the foot ?
I do n't know , maybe not , maybe it 'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread , but I really do n't believe it 's naive to distrust publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the prevailing slashdot assumption will be that publishers somehow fail to realize this, but I doubt that.Does success mean "not alienating?
"  All of these successful DRM practices alienate customers, it's just that there's enough who are disinterested to make up for it.
I give the example of audio cassettes which, despite opposition by recording companies, not only gave them a new outlet for their music, but made vinyl MORE worthwhile because the consumer had more options.
Ditto video cassettes... they whined and whined until they found out they had a whole new revenue stream, at which point they were making more money than ever.Are they shooting themselves in the foot?
I don't know, maybe not, maybe it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I really don't believe it's naive to distrust publishers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327950</id>
	<title>Welcome to the land of fail...</title>
	<author>BrianRaker</author>
	<datestamp>1259960340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish them luck in this venture... they're going to need it with a market that already has widely accepted semi-user-friendly devices (Amazon Kindle, Sony eReader, etc).</p><p>Also, haven't they learned their lesson already in other markets?  Publisher (content-owner) friendly rarely ever is accepted by the marketplace as it wasn't designed with the end user (the people PAYING for this "service").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish them luck in this venture... they 're going to need it with a market that already has widely accepted semi-user-friendly devices ( Amazon Kindle , Sony eReader , etc ) .Also , have n't they learned their lesson already in other markets ?
Publisher ( content-owner ) friendly rarely ever is accepted by the marketplace as it was n't designed with the end user ( the people PAYING for this " service " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish them luck in this venture... they're going to need it with a market that already has widely accepted semi-user-friendly devices (Amazon Kindle, Sony eReader, etc).Also, haven't they learned their lesson already in other markets?
Publisher (content-owner) friendly rarely ever is accepted by the marketplace as it wasn't designed with the end user (the people PAYING for this "service").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331978</id>
	<title>Some "get marketshare quick" book around?</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1259939460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a popular book about business management that suggest to target the largest marketshare owner?</p><p>First Palm claims they will kill iPhone, Verizon attacks directly AT&amp;T/Apple and now this.</p><p>Such basic "rule of thumb" things do not work. You can't beat Amazon in anything online unless you change the way you think. Amazon would happily allow \_your\_ ads inside their pages. Do you have such vision? Amazon could let you use their own idle processing power for your services and can happily rent cheap bandwidth to you. That is the kind of a company you race with.</p><p>Will you sell any book about Citizen Kane in your store to begin with? How many years have your media empire boycotted Orson Wells because of his work? Start with answering it and apologizing him/his fans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a popular book about business management that suggest to target the largest marketshare owner ? First Palm claims they will kill iPhone , Verizon attacks directly AT&amp;T/Apple and now this.Such basic " rule of thumb " things do not work .
You ca n't beat Amazon in anything online unless you change the way you think .
Amazon would happily allow \ _your \ _ ads inside their pages .
Do you have such vision ?
Amazon could let you use their own idle processing power for your services and can happily rent cheap bandwidth to you .
That is the kind of a company you race with.Will you sell any book about Citizen Kane in your store to begin with ?
How many years have your media empire boycotted Orson Wells because of his work ?
Start with answering it and apologizing him/his fans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a popular book about business management that suggest to target the largest marketshare owner?First Palm claims they will kill iPhone, Verizon attacks directly AT&amp;T/Apple and now this.Such basic "rule of thumb" things do not work.
You can't beat Amazon in anything online unless you change the way you think.
Amazon would happily allow \_your\_ ads inside their pages.
Do you have such vision?
Amazon could let you use their own idle processing power for your services and can happily rent cheap bandwidth to you.
That is the kind of a company you race with.Will you sell any book about Citizen Kane in your store to begin with?
How many years have your media empire boycotted Orson Wells because of his work?
Start with answering it and apologizing him/his fans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328778</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>Enry</author>
	<datestamp>1259920800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had books published (one even reviewed here), but that was almost 10 years ago, so YMMV (but IAAA (I Am An Author)):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have? I've heard that it's about 70\%, so what's their problem, anyway?</p></div><p>It's usually on the order of 100\% markup (so a $10 book from the publisher goes for $20).  I should also note that authors get a percentage of the publisher sales price, so if a book sells for 30\% off or at full price, the publisher and author receive the same amount.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Despite all the problems with the Kindle -- poor PDF support, low-contrast screen, Orwellian fears..</p></div><p>Having owned a Kindle 2 for the past two months, the PDF support doesn't bother me (and is apparently fixed in the latest release).  The screen and form factor are FAR better than I thought they'd be.  It's easy to read in just about any light, and it's as easy to hold as a thin paperback book.  As for the Orwellian fears, I have to admit the first thing I'm doing with the Kindle is getting books I already own, but want to reread so I can donate the book to the library or some charitable organization - did I mention I have a LOT of books?.  As long as the Kindle and my e-books will be around for a long time, it doesn't matter if I have the physical book anymore.  So I'm more worried about Amazon going out of business or getting out of the ebook business and my ebooks become unusable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had books published ( one even reviewed here ) , but that was almost 10 years ago , so YMMV ( but IAAA ( I Am An Author ) ) : How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have ?
I 've heard that it 's about 70 \ % , so what 's their problem , anyway ? It 's usually on the order of 100 \ % markup ( so a $ 10 book from the publisher goes for $ 20 ) .
I should also note that authors get a percentage of the publisher sales price , so if a book sells for 30 \ % off or at full price , the publisher and author receive the same amount.Despite all the problems with the Kindle -- poor PDF support , low-contrast screen , Orwellian fears..Having owned a Kindle 2 for the past two months , the PDF support does n't bother me ( and is apparently fixed in the latest release ) .
The screen and form factor are FAR better than I thought they 'd be .
It 's easy to read in just about any light , and it 's as easy to hold as a thin paperback book .
As for the Orwellian fears , I have to admit the first thing I 'm doing with the Kindle is getting books I already own , but want to reread so I can donate the book to the library or some charitable organization - did I mention I have a LOT of books ? .
As long as the Kindle and my e-books will be around for a long time , it does n't matter if I have the physical book anymore .
So I 'm more worried about Amazon going out of business or getting out of the ebook business and my ebooks become unusable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had books published (one even reviewed here), but that was almost 10 years ago, so YMMV (but IAAA (I Am An Author)):How much of a markup does a brick and morter store that sells dead tree books have?
I've heard that it's about 70\%, so what's their problem, anyway?It's usually on the order of 100\% markup (so a $10 book from the publisher goes for $20).
I should also note that authors get a percentage of the publisher sales price, so if a book sells for 30\% off or at full price, the publisher and author receive the same amount.Despite all the problems with the Kindle -- poor PDF support, low-contrast screen, Orwellian fears..Having owned a Kindle 2 for the past two months, the PDF support doesn't bother me (and is apparently fixed in the latest release).
The screen and form factor are FAR better than I thought they'd be.
It's easy to read in just about any light, and it's as easy to hold as a thin paperback book.
As for the Orwellian fears, I have to admit the first thing I'm doing with the Kindle is getting books I already own, but want to reread so I can donate the book to the library or some charitable organization - did I mention I have a LOT of books?.
As long as the Kindle and my e-books will be around for a long time, it doesn't matter if I have the physical book anymore.
So I'm more worried about Amazon going out of business or getting out of the ebook business and my ebooks become unusable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329322</id>
	<title>Customers first</title>
	<author>Kimen</author>
	<datestamp>1259923140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they should be more concerned with customer friendly than publisher friendly.  Even though we like having competition, I am very suspicious of a company that uses phrasing like this.  It usually is an indication of an underlying viewpoint and in this case I am led to believe that viewpoint is decidedly not customer centric.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should be more concerned with customer friendly than publisher friendly .
Even though we like having competition , I am very suspicious of a company that uses phrasing like this .
It usually is an indication of an underlying viewpoint and in this case I am led to believe that viewpoint is decidedly not customer centric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should be more concerned with customer friendly than publisher friendly.
Even though we like having competition, I am very suspicious of a company that uses phrasing like this.
It usually is an indication of an underlying viewpoint and in this case I am led to believe that viewpoint is decidedly not customer centric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328128</id>
	<title>Re:great for publi$her$?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more competition there is, the more likely that'll go away.</p><p>Just like higher competition in the online music sales market basically killed DRM for online music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more competition there is , the more likely that 'll go away.Just like higher competition in the online music sales market basically killed DRM for online music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more competition there is, the more likely that'll go away.Just like higher competition in the online music sales market basically killed DRM for online music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30332258</id>
	<title>So not for users eh?</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1259943480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meaning its another brick not worth having.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning its another brick not worth having .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meaning its another brick not worth having.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330048</id>
	<title>Magazines and Newspapers</title>
	<author>TomRC</author>
	<datestamp>1259926320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that Skiff is aimed (initially) primarily at magazines and newspapers, not books.  That has a different use model - not "buy and keep", but mostly "buy, skim &amp; read, discard".  Sure, Kindle does magazines and newspapers too - but clearly not as well as might be done with a larger, color display.</p><p>Websites already fill this need, mostly for free - but web publishers can't cover costs of in-depth news and make a profit.</p><p>To get the market share they need AND avoid hardware freeloaders, Skiff will have to offer a hardware + 3 year multi-magazine subscription bundle for at least $10/month, probably $15.  They can beat out paper magazines by giving people who'd normally subscribe to only one or two magazines, access to dozens for the same price, creating a higher perceived value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that Skiff is aimed ( initially ) primarily at magazines and newspapers , not books .
That has a different use model - not " buy and keep " , but mostly " buy , skim &amp; read , discard " .
Sure , Kindle does magazines and newspapers too - but clearly not as well as might be done with a larger , color display.Websites already fill this need , mostly for free - but web publishers ca n't cover costs of in-depth news and make a profit.To get the market share they need AND avoid hardware freeloaders , Skiff will have to offer a hardware + 3 year multi-magazine subscription bundle for at least $ 10/month , probably $ 15 .
They can beat out paper magazines by giving people who 'd normally subscribe to only one or two magazines , access to dozens for the same price , creating a higher perceived value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that Skiff is aimed (initially) primarily at magazines and newspapers, not books.
That has a different use model - not "buy and keep", but mostly "buy, skim &amp; read, discard".
Sure, Kindle does magazines and newspapers too - but clearly not as well as might be done with a larger, color display.Websites already fill this need, mostly for free - but web publishers can't cover costs of in-depth news and make a profit.To get the market share they need AND avoid hardware freeloaders, Skiff will have to offer a hardware + 3 year multi-magazine subscription bundle for at least $10/month, probably $15.
They can beat out paper magazines by giving people who'd normally subscribe to only one or two magazines, access to dozens for the same price, creating a higher perceived value.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328236</id>
	<title>Time Enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After society is dead and gone, and there's no more electricity... these things will be useless... but... I'll still have my paper and ink books... until my glasses fall off my face and break.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time\_Enough\_at\_Last</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After society is dead and gone , and there 's no more electricity... these things will be useless... but... I 'll still have my paper and ink books... until my glasses fall off my face and break.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time \ _Enough \ _at \ _Last</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After society is dead and gone, and there's no more electricity... these things will be useless... but... I'll still have my paper and ink books... until my glasses fall off my face and break.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time\_Enough\_at\_Last</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330314</id>
	<title>They can't help it.</title>
	<author>rebel</author>
	<datestamp>1259927460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see subject</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see subject</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see subject</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327834</id>
	<title>Spliff?</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1259959860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Love that their logo has a lit joint in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Love that their logo has a lit joint in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Love that their logo has a lit joint in it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712</id>
	<title>Re:great for publishers?</title>
	<author>daVinci1980</author>
	<datestamp>1259920440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my slightly offtopic rant for you slashdotters that think it's funny or clever to replace an 's' with a dollar sign.</p><p>I get it. You think that the entity being referred to is greedy. Here's what you don't seem to get. It's childish, and it does one of three things:</p><p>1) It gives the impression that your rhetoric wouldn't be strong enough to stand on its own--therefore you need a gimmick to ensure that people really get your message.<br>2) It's unrelated to your rhetoric, and therefore distracting from your overall message.<br>3) It makes you seem to be an uninformed, out of touch individual who has no concept of how things work in the real world.</p><p>I'm going to offer a bit of free advice, whether you want it or not. Spelling and presentation matter. And do you know why they matter? They matter because you're trying to convey a message. Your readers and listeners only have so much concentration they can or will devote to understanding your message. If we have to spend effort translating your spelling or grammatical errors, or we have to perform in-place symbol substitution, that is distracting us from the point you are trying to make. Do yourself a favor, and give up on these childish devices.</p><p>Here's a short list of the slashdotisms that need to die:</p><p>- Substituting '$' for 's'<br>- ^H (acceptable for Funny posts only)<br>- Calling Microsoft employees or users Microserfs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my slightly offtopic rant for you slashdotters that think it 's funny or clever to replace an 's ' with a dollar sign.I get it .
You think that the entity being referred to is greedy .
Here 's what you do n't seem to get .
It 's childish , and it does one of three things : 1 ) It gives the impression that your rhetoric would n't be strong enough to stand on its own--therefore you need a gimmick to ensure that people really get your message.2 ) It 's unrelated to your rhetoric , and therefore distracting from your overall message.3 ) It makes you seem to be an uninformed , out of touch individual who has no concept of how things work in the real world.I 'm going to offer a bit of free advice , whether you want it or not .
Spelling and presentation matter .
And do you know why they matter ?
They matter because you 're trying to convey a message .
Your readers and listeners only have so much concentration they can or will devote to understanding your message .
If we have to spend effort translating your spelling or grammatical errors , or we have to perform in-place symbol substitution , that is distracting us from the point you are trying to make .
Do yourself a favor , and give up on these childish devices.Here 's a short list of the slashdotisms that need to die : - Substituting ' $ ' for 's'- ^ H ( acceptable for Funny posts only ) - Calling Microsoft employees or users Microserfs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my slightly offtopic rant for you slashdotters that think it's funny or clever to replace an 's' with a dollar sign.I get it.
You think that the entity being referred to is greedy.
Here's what you don't seem to get.
It's childish, and it does one of three things:1) It gives the impression that your rhetoric wouldn't be strong enough to stand on its own--therefore you need a gimmick to ensure that people really get your message.2) It's unrelated to your rhetoric, and therefore distracting from your overall message.3) It makes you seem to be an uninformed, out of touch individual who has no concept of how things work in the real world.I'm going to offer a bit of free advice, whether you want it or not.
Spelling and presentation matter.
And do you know why they matter?
They matter because you're trying to convey a message.
Your readers and listeners only have so much concentration they can or will devote to understanding your message.
If we have to spend effort translating your spelling or grammatical errors, or we have to perform in-place symbol substitution, that is distracting us from the point you are trying to make.
Do yourself a favor, and give up on these childish devices.Here's a short list of the slashdotisms that need to die:- Substituting '$' for 's'- ^H (acceptable for Funny posts only)- Calling Microsoft employees or users Microserfs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259960340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a brick &amp; mortar store, that 70\% (gross) pays for: insurance, property taxes on equipment and real estate if they own the property, building, employees pay, utilities, rent, etc....<p>Amazon: that 70\% (gross) of the price of an <i>electronic</i> copy of a book that has an marginal cost approaching zero is just about all profit.</p><p>Personally, I think when it comes to electronic books, the royalties to the author should be based upon what a printed book would cost, the publisher works out a cost plus system for charging for the copy wholesale, and then Amazon adds their mark up. Charging a price close to a paper book for an electronic book just seams wrong to me - one of the largest costs of a printed book is its paper and ink.</p><p>Amazon is making a killing off of Kindle books and they're not passing that on to subsidize the price of the Kindle device. Without subsidies, they could sell that device for almost half and make a decent living on it. With subsidies, they could those suckers for $50 - easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a brick &amp; mortar store , that 70 \ % ( gross ) pays for : insurance , property taxes on equipment and real estate if they own the property , building , employees pay , utilities , rent , etc....Amazon : that 70 \ % ( gross ) of the price of an electronic copy of a book that has an marginal cost approaching zero is just about all profit.Personally , I think when it comes to electronic books , the royalties to the author should be based upon what a printed book would cost , the publisher works out a cost plus system for charging for the copy wholesale , and then Amazon adds their mark up .
Charging a price close to a paper book for an electronic book just seams wrong to me - one of the largest costs of a printed book is its paper and ink.Amazon is making a killing off of Kindle books and they 're not passing that on to subsidize the price of the Kindle device .
Without subsidies , they could sell that device for almost half and make a decent living on it .
With subsidies , they could those suckers for $ 50 - easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a brick &amp; mortar store, that 70\% (gross) pays for: insurance, property taxes on equipment and real estate if they own the property, building, employees pay, utilities, rent, etc....Amazon: that 70\% (gross) of the price of an electronic copy of a book that has an marginal cost approaching zero is just about all profit.Personally, I think when it comes to electronic books, the royalties to the author should be based upon what a printed book would cost, the publisher works out a cost plus system for charging for the copy wholesale, and then Amazon adds their mark up.
Charging a price close to a paper book for an electronic book just seams wrong to me - one of the largest costs of a printed book is its paper and ink.Amazon is making a killing off of Kindle books and they're not passing that on to subsidize the price of the Kindle device.
Without subsidies, they could sell that device for almost half and make a decent living on it.
With subsidies, they could those suckers for $50 - easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328268</id>
	<title>Re:Easy for publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'll put up with ads in a printed magazine, because all I'm paying for is paper and ink, ads pay for the rest. I'm not going to pay for electronic media with ads; no paper and no ink. That's just ubergreed, double dipping, and is completely unwarranted and unacceptable.</i> </p><p>Let me get this straight. You acknowledge in your first sentence that ads are largely what makes the production of the content possible. Then in your next sentence, you turn around and say "But I won't take an electronic magazine that has ads". Who exactly is being greedy here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll put up with ads in a printed magazine , because all I 'm paying for is paper and ink , ads pay for the rest .
I 'm not going to pay for electronic media with ads ; no paper and no ink .
That 's just ubergreed , double dipping , and is completely unwarranted and unacceptable .
Let me get this straight .
You acknowledge in your first sentence that ads are largely what makes the production of the content possible .
Then in your next sentence , you turn around and say " But I wo n't take an electronic magazine that has ads " .
Who exactly is being greedy here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll put up with ads in a printed magazine, because all I'm paying for is paper and ink, ads pay for the rest.
I'm not going to pay for electronic media with ads; no paper and no ink.
That's just ubergreed, double dipping, and is completely unwarranted and unacceptable.
Let me get this straight.
You acknowledge in your first sentence that ads are largely what makes the production of the content possible.
Then in your next sentence, you turn around and say "But I won't take an electronic magazine that has ads".
Who exactly is being greedy here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328978</id>
	<title>I can see this being useful if they give it away.</title>
	<author>corran\_\_horn</author>
	<datestamp>1259921700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see this style of device being accepted if it comes with magazine subscriptions (free reader with your newsweek subscription, reader copies only), but otherwise I would anticipate it flopping.  People don't like cash outlay for products to use other products, leading to the razor/razorblade phenomenon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see this style of device being accepted if it comes with magazine subscriptions ( free reader with your newsweek subscription , reader copies only ) , but otherwise I would anticipate it flopping .
People do n't like cash outlay for products to use other products , leading to the razor/razorblade phenomenon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see this style of device being accepted if it comes with magazine subscriptions (free reader with your newsweek subscription, reader copies only), but otherwise I would anticipate it flopping.
People don't like cash outlay for products to use other products, leading to the razor/razorblade phenomenon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30333652</id>
	<title>In summary</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1260008520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In summary, the important points:

<ul>
<li> <b>The goal of Skiff</b> (from the press release): "connect publishers and marketers with consumers". Translation: getting advertising to the consumer is just as important as getting content to the consumer. The isn't anything the consumer wants; we see where their priorities are.</li><li> <b>Eliminate the middleman</b>: Who the heck said this? It isn't in TFA or even in TFS. Skiff wants to <i>be</i> the middleman.</li><li> <b>Kindle; no control over your content</b>: Lots of comments complain about the Kindle, the lack of control over the content you have purchased, and being tied to a particular company. Why has no one stated the obvious solution?

<ol> <li>Buy eReaders that support the ePub format (Kindle does not, guess why).</li><li>Buy ePub books and keep your library on your own computer.</li><li>Most important of all: <b> <i>support publishers like <a href="http://www.baen.com/library/" title="baen.com">Baen Books</a> [baen.com], whose eBooks are DRM-free.</i> </b> </li></ol></li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>In summary , the important points : The goal of Skiff ( from the press release ) : " connect publishers and marketers with consumers " .
Translation : getting advertising to the consumer is just as important as getting content to the consumer .
The is n't anything the consumer wants ; we see where their priorities are .
Eliminate the middleman : Who the heck said this ?
It is n't in TFA or even in TFS .
Skiff wants to be the middleman .
Kindle ; no control over your content : Lots of comments complain about the Kindle , the lack of control over the content you have purchased , and being tied to a particular company .
Why has no one stated the obvious solution ?
Buy eReaders that support the ePub format ( Kindle does not , guess why ) .Buy ePub books and keep your library on your own computer.Most important of all : support publishers like Baen Books [ baen.com ] , whose eBooks are DRM-free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In summary, the important points:


 The goal of Skiff (from the press release): "connect publishers and marketers with consumers".
Translation: getting advertising to the consumer is just as important as getting content to the consumer.
The isn't anything the consumer wants; we see where their priorities are.
Eliminate the middleman: Who the heck said this?
It isn't in TFA or even in TFS.
Skiff wants to be the middleman.
Kindle; no control over your content: Lots of comments complain about the Kindle, the lack of control over the content you have purchased, and being tied to a particular company.
Why has no one stated the obvious solution?
Buy eReaders that support the ePub format (Kindle does not, guess why).Buy ePub books and keep your library on your own computer.Most important of all:  support publishers like Baen Books [baen.com], whose eBooks are DRM-free.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30334248</id>
	<title>Re:great for publishers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260018960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your obviously superior intellect is truly inspiring. Just remember to be careful when it's time to get off that horse you're sitting on at the moment. It's a very, very long way down to the ground. You might get hurt, and we wouldn't want that.</p><p>You're right, of course, and I do agree.</p><p>But <b>damn</b> if your tone isn't a pretentious one...and it's distracting. And I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not: This fact alone will ensure that the people you would like to get your point will absolutely fail to do so.</p><p>In short: Nice try, but you missed the target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your obviously superior intellect is truly inspiring .
Just remember to be careful when it 's time to get off that horse you 're sitting on at the moment .
It 's a very , very long way down to the ground .
You might get hurt , and we would n't want that.You 're right , of course , and I do agree.But damn if your tone is n't a pretentious one...and it 's distracting .
And I 'm not sure if you 're aware of this or not : This fact alone will ensure that the people you would like to get your point will absolutely fail to do so.In short : Nice try , but you missed the target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your obviously superior intellect is truly inspiring.
Just remember to be careful when it's time to get off that horse you're sitting on at the moment.
It's a very, very long way down to the ground.
You might get hurt, and we wouldn't want that.You're right, of course, and I do agree.But damn if your tone isn't a pretentious one...and it's distracting.
And I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not: This fact alone will ensure that the people you would like to get your point will absolutely fail to do so.In short: Nice try, but you missed the target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30333508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30334248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30345454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30336858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_179211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30333508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30345454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329182
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30336858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30329164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30334248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30330048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30327904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30331428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_179211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_179211.30328160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
