<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_0112204</id>
	<title>An Artist's View of the Modern Music Biz</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263992880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"A member of the band <em>OK Go</em> wrote an interesting open letter giving an <a href="http://okgo.forumsunlimited.com/index.php?showtopic=4169">artist's perspective on the current state of the music business</a> and how labels finance producing, distributing, and marketing music and music videos. A very insightful perspective of 'both sides': the argument that music and music videos are meant to be heard and, in the case of the latter, seen by a wide audience; and the argument that the money needs to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, the letter doesn't address the perspective outsiders have of outlandish salaries in the music labels, but it is interesting nonetheless."</i> Their <a href="http://bit.ly/okgottspvid">new video</a> is not bad either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " A member of the band OK Go wrote an interesting open letter giving an artist 's perspective on the current state of the music business and how labels finance producing , distributing , and marketing music and music videos .
A very insightful perspective of 'both sides ' : the argument that music and music videos are meant to be heard and , in the case of the latter , seen by a wide audience ; and the argument that the money needs to come from somewhere .
Unfortunately , the letter does n't address the perspective outsiders have of outlandish salaries in the music labels , but it is interesting nonetheless .
" Their new video is not bad either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "A member of the band OK Go wrote an interesting open letter giving an artist's perspective on the current state of the music business and how labels finance producing, distributing, and marketing music and music videos.
A very insightful perspective of 'both sides': the argument that music and music videos are meant to be heard and, in the case of the latter, seen by a wide audience; and the argument that the money needs to come from somewhere.
Unfortunately, the letter doesn't address the perspective outsiders have of outlandish salaries in the music labels, but it is interesting nonetheless.
" Their new video is not bad either.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832798</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>grumpyman</author>
	<datestamp>1264006620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All sounds logical, though if #2 really works out the way it is, all big/medium/small bands should have all flocked to option #2 asap.  I don't see it happening currently - why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All sounds logical , though if # 2 really works out the way it is , all big/medium/small bands should have all flocked to option # 2 asap .
I do n't see it happening currently - why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All sounds logical, though if #2 really works out the way it is, all big/medium/small bands should have all flocked to option #2 asap.
I don't see it happening currently - why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832760</id>
	<title>Re:Musicians need labels to become famous</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1264006500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?</p></div><p>  Back in the day, the corporations that ran countries didn't bother with the pretense of elections, and the executives also didn't have to pretend that they were generating profit. Princes aren't what they once were, and Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven would find success harder today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To that end , can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven ?
Back in the day , the corporations that ran countries did n't bother with the pretense of elections , and the executives also did n't have to pretend that they were generating profit .
Princes are n't what they once were , and Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven would find success harder today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?
Back in the day, the corporations that ran countries didn't bother with the pretense of elections, and the executives also didn't have to pretend that they were generating profit.
Princes aren't what they once were, and Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven would find success harder today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263998880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.  What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.  If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.</p></div><p>Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.</p><p>The difference between a bank loan and a record company advance is that the record label is taking some of the risk. They can do it because they aggregate it across many acts, most of whom will fail, a few of whom will succeed well enough to fund the rest. Unfortunately we see that bands typically build up a debt to their record company,  and that's a shame.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.  Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI.</p></div><p>But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video? There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output. It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.</p><p>I guess there are some organic successes out there (Jonathan Coulter?) - but they'll remain the exception rather than the rule.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also do n't understand why he thinks that artists 'need ' record labels .
What they 'need ' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss ' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain .
If you need an advance , you go to a real bank and get an advancement.Meanwhile , the band across the road gets a record deal , grows faster than organically , and is playing stadiums while you 're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.The difference between a bank loan and a record company advance is that the record label is taking some of the risk .
They can do it because they aggregate it across many acts , most of whom will fail , a few of whom will succeed well enough to fund the rest .
Unfortunately we see that bands typically build up a debt to their record company , and that 's a shame.I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I 'd buy it .
Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success , not EMI.But without EMI , would you even have been exposed to that video ?
There 's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output .
It 's record companies ' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.I guess there are some organic successes out there ( Jonathan Coulter ?
) - but they 'll remain the exception rather than the rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.
What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.
If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.The difference between a bank loan and a record company advance is that the record label is taking some of the risk.
They can do it because they aggregate it across many acts, most of whom will fail, a few of whom will succeed well enough to fund the rest.
Unfortunately we see that bands typically build up a debt to their record company,  and that's a shame.I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.
Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI.But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video?
There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output.
It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.I guess there are some organic successes out there (Jonathan Coulter?
) - but they'll remain the exception rather than the rule.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832850</id>
	<title>Jonathan Byrd...</title>
	<author>Misch</author>
	<datestamp>1264006800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Independent singer/songwriter <a href="http://www.jonathanbyrd.com/updates.htm" title="jonathanbyrd.com">Jonathan Byrd</a> [jonathanbyrd.com] released his own <a href="http://www.jonathanbyrd.com/updates.htm" title="jonathanbyrd.com">financial statement for 2008</a> [jonathanbyrd.com]. (You'll have to scroll down to his 3/28/2009 update for it).</p><p>I was amused by his summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>So, that leaves me about $9000 to spend on frivolities, such as my mortgage, pants, and lettuce.</p><p>So, the next person who complains to me about CDs costing $20 is going to get strapped to a fire ant hill and tasered in the nuts. Can we all take a vote? All in favor, signify by saying "aye." All opposed?</p><p>Very well, then. It's unanimous.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Independent singer/songwriter Jonathan Byrd [ jonathanbyrd.com ] released his own financial statement for 2008 [ jonathanbyrd.com ] .
( You 'll have to scroll down to his 3/28/2009 update for it ) .I was amused by his summary : So , that leaves me about $ 9000 to spend on frivolities , such as my mortgage , pants , and lettuce.So , the next person who complains to me about CDs costing $ 20 is going to get strapped to a fire ant hill and tasered in the nuts .
Can we all take a vote ?
All in favor , signify by saying " aye .
" All opposed ? Very well , then .
It 's unanimous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Independent singer/songwriter Jonathan Byrd [jonathanbyrd.com] released his own financial statement for 2008 [jonathanbyrd.com].
(You'll have to scroll down to his 3/28/2009 update for it).I was amused by his summary:So, that leaves me about $9000 to spend on frivolities, such as my mortgage, pants, and lettuce.So, the next person who complains to me about CDs costing $20 is going to get strapped to a fire ant hill and tasered in the nuts.
Can we all take a vote?
All in favor, signify by saying "aye.
" All opposed?Very well, then.
It's unanimous.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832246</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1264004520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels. What they 'need' is to grow organically...</p></div><p>Well I'm sure that at least part of the problem is that you "need" the labels because the labels exist.  Ok, that's a weird way of putting it, but here's the thing: to some extent, industries also need to grow organically.  They need to develop business models and trade organizations and conventional ways of doing things and bla bla bla.  Right now, record labels are filling that void, and we won't develop real alternatives until there's nothing filling that void.
</p><p>Imagine your a musician.  You're not a businessman.  You don't want to be a businessman.  You don't want to have to figure out international distribution deals, which deal with different laws across hundreds of countries.  You don't want to have to figure out how to get yourself on the radio and on MTV (oh, wait... MTV doesn't have music anymore... well, whatever the modern equivalent is of MTV).  You just want to play your music and let someone else figure that stuff out.  Maybe you have a manager, but that's still a lot of work for one person.  You don't have the money to hire a team of people, or at least you don't yet.  Who figures out your pathways into those things?
</p><p>Sure, you have the option of simply living without that stuff, but if you want that stuff, the labels still hold the keys to the kingdom.  Sometime in the future, if running a record label ceases to be profitable and they all go out of business, some other businesses or organizations will step up to the plate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also do n't understand why he thinks that artists 'need ' record labels .
What they 'need ' is to grow organically...Well I 'm sure that at least part of the problem is that you " need " the labels because the labels exist .
Ok , that 's a weird way of putting it , but here 's the thing : to some extent , industries also need to grow organically .
They need to develop business models and trade organizations and conventional ways of doing things and bla bla bla .
Right now , record labels are filling that void , and we wo n't develop real alternatives until there 's nothing filling that void .
Imagine your a musician .
You 're not a businessman .
You do n't want to be a businessman .
You do n't want to have to figure out international distribution deals , which deal with different laws across hundreds of countries .
You do n't want to have to figure out how to get yourself on the radio and on MTV ( oh , wait... MTV does n't have music anymore... well , whatever the modern equivalent is of MTV ) .
You just want to play your music and let someone else figure that stuff out .
Maybe you have a manager , but that 's still a lot of work for one person .
You do n't have the money to hire a team of people , or at least you do n't yet .
Who figures out your pathways into those things ?
Sure , you have the option of simply living without that stuff , but if you want that stuff , the labels still hold the keys to the kingdom .
Sometime in the future , if running a record label ceases to be profitable and they all go out of business , some other businesses or organizations will step up to the plate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.
What they 'need' is to grow organically...Well I'm sure that at least part of the problem is that you "need" the labels because the labels exist.
Ok, that's a weird way of putting it, but here's the thing: to some extent, industries also need to grow organically.
They need to develop business models and trade organizations and conventional ways of doing things and bla bla bla.
Right now, record labels are filling that void, and we won't develop real alternatives until there's nothing filling that void.
Imagine your a musician.
You're not a businessman.
You don't want to be a businessman.
You don't want to have to figure out international distribution deals, which deal with different laws across hundreds of countries.
You don't want to have to figure out how to get yourself on the radio and on MTV (oh, wait... MTV doesn't have music anymore... well, whatever the modern equivalent is of MTV).
You just want to play your music and let someone else figure that stuff out.
Maybe you have a manager, but that's still a lot of work for one person.
You don't have the money to hire a team of people, or at least you don't yet.
Who figures out your pathways into those things?
Sure, you have the option of simply living without that stuff, but if you want that stuff, the labels still hold the keys to the kingdom.
Sometime in the future, if running a record label ceases to be profitable and they all go out of business, some other businesses or organizations will step up to the plate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832914</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1264007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs, CDs, and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section. I would guess that at my current library, only about 20-25\% of the selections are non-fiction</p></div></blockquote><p>My wife is a librarian, so I know a little about this. The reason that the proportion of non-fiction is lower is two-fold. Firstly, the demand is dropping. Libraries are paid for by the taxpayer and it's hard to justify not stocking the kinds of items they are actually interested in. Secondly, non-fiction is simply not being published as much because of the explosion of access to non-fiction information online. One of the very important functions that modern libraries provide which you totally overlook is free access to the internet, along with training and instruction on how to use it. This is replacing (and improving on, in many respects) traditional reference books.</p><p>Additionally, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of the purpose of a library. I think they are many fold, and one is the promotion of general literacy. Most librarians are just happy to get kids (and adults to be honest) to read \_anything\_, the argument over whether they're reading the \_right\_ thing can come later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs , CDs , and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section .
I would guess that at my current library , only about 20-25 \ % of the selections are non-fictionMy wife is a librarian , so I know a little about this .
The reason that the proportion of non-fiction is lower is two-fold .
Firstly , the demand is dropping .
Libraries are paid for by the taxpayer and it 's hard to justify not stocking the kinds of items they are actually interested in .
Secondly , non-fiction is simply not being published as much because of the explosion of access to non-fiction information online .
One of the very important functions that modern libraries provide which you totally overlook is free access to the internet , along with training and instruction on how to use it .
This is replacing ( and improving on , in many respects ) traditional reference books.Additionally , I 'm not sure I agree with your definition of the purpose of a library .
I think they are many fold , and one is the promotion of general literacy .
Most librarians are just happy to get kids ( and adults to be honest ) to read \ _anything \ _ , the argument over whether they 're reading the \ _right \ _ thing can come later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs, CDs, and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section.
I would guess that at my current library, only about 20-25\% of the selections are non-fictionMy wife is a librarian, so I know a little about this.
The reason that the proportion of non-fiction is lower is two-fold.
Firstly, the demand is dropping.
Libraries are paid for by the taxpayer and it's hard to justify not stocking the kinds of items they are actually interested in.
Secondly, non-fiction is simply not being published as much because of the explosion of access to non-fiction information online.
One of the very important functions that modern libraries provide which you totally overlook is free access to the internet, along with training and instruction on how to use it.
This is replacing (and improving on, in many respects) traditional reference books.Additionally, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of the purpose of a library.
I think they are many fold, and one is the promotion of general literacy.
Most librarians are just happy to get kids (and adults to be honest) to read \_anything\_, the argument over whether they're reading the \_right\_ thing can come later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833516</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of Merchandise?</p><p>Its quite popular in the form of clothing.  People will wear things showing off their favorite band.  The crazy thing is, while people will pay $15 for a cd, that might be released every three or four years from a band, they will pay $50 for a hoodie, $20 for a tshirt, $15 for a hat, and so on and so forth, without even needing the band to do anything but keep released music on their regular cycle.</p><p>There will \_ALWAYS\_ be a market for clothing.  Humans aren't simply going to 'go digital'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of Merchandise ? Its quite popular in the form of clothing .
People will wear things showing off their favorite band .
The crazy thing is , while people will pay $ 15 for a cd , that might be released every three or four years from a band , they will pay $ 50 for a hoodie , $ 20 for a tshirt , $ 15 for a hat , and so on and so forth , without even needing the band to do anything but keep released music on their regular cycle.There will \ _ALWAYS \ _ be a market for clothing .
Humans are n't simply going to 'go digital' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of Merchandise?Its quite popular in the form of clothing.
People will wear things showing off their favorite band.
The crazy thing is, while people will pay $15 for a cd, that might be released every three or four years from a band, they will pay $50 for a hoodie, $20 for a tshirt, $15 for a hat, and so on and so forth, without even needing the band to do anything but keep released music on their regular cycle.There will \_ALWAYS\_ be a market for clothing.
Humans aren't simply going to 'go digital'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30844008</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264073100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only the W3C wasn't so determined to get rid of the target attribute.</p><p>Yet another useful thing that was removed just because developers tend to abuse it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only the W3C was n't so determined to get rid of the target attribute.Yet another useful thing that was removed just because developers tend to abuse it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only the W3C wasn't so determined to get rid of the target attribute.Yet another useful thing that was removed just because developers tend to abuse it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836106</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.</title>
	<author>Art3x</author>
	<datestamp>1264019040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.</p></div><p>I likewise. But the musician's main gripe is that blogs can't embed the videos. The advantage of an embed over a link, I think, the freeze frame it shows, drawing the reader in to more likely click. Solution: make a JPEG freeze frame of the video and link it to YouTube. You could make it open in a new, small window, too, to (kind of) keep the reader on the site.</p><p>This is probably beyond the bother of most bloggers, who aren't web developers. Still, YouTube could provide the code to copy and paste a picture-link, in lieu of the code to embed the video.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact if I see an embedded video , I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.I likewise .
But the musician 's main gripe is that blogs ca n't embed the videos .
The advantage of an embed over a link , I think , the freeze frame it shows , drawing the reader in to more likely click .
Solution : make a JPEG freeze frame of the video and link it to YouTube .
You could make it open in a new , small window , too , to ( kind of ) keep the reader on the site.This is probably beyond the bother of most bloggers , who are n't web developers .
Still , YouTube could provide the code to copy and paste a picture-link , in lieu of the code to embed the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.I likewise.
But the musician's main gripe is that blogs can't embed the videos.
The advantage of an embed over a link, I think, the freeze frame it shows, drawing the reader in to more likely click.
Solution: make a JPEG freeze frame of the video and link it to YouTube.
You could make it open in a new, small window, too, to (kind of) keep the reader on the site.This is probably beyond the bother of most bloggers, who aren't web developers.
Still, YouTube could provide the code to copy and paste a picture-link, in lieu of the code to embed the video.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836818</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263978960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>all the kids want what they want NOW<br></i><br>So why are these idiots trying to sell to kids in the first place? Why not sell to people with money and patience?</p><p>Perhaps it's because it's easier to decieve those without a lot of experience in the world? You can convince a kid a dog turd is cool and he'll buy one. Not only will you not convince an adult dog turds are cool, they wouldn't buy them even if you COULD convince them they were cool.</p><p>It's easy to steal from the naive. That's why RIAA music is geared to kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all the kids want what they want NOWSo why are these idiots trying to sell to kids in the first place ?
Why not sell to people with money and patience ? Perhaps it 's because it 's easier to decieve those without a lot of experience in the world ?
You can convince a kid a dog turd is cool and he 'll buy one .
Not only will you not convince an adult dog turds are cool , they would n't buy them even if you COULD convince them they were cool.It 's easy to steal from the naive .
That 's why RIAA music is geared to kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all the kids want what they want NOWSo why are these idiots trying to sell to kids in the first place?
Why not sell to people with money and patience?Perhaps it's because it's easier to decieve those without a lot of experience in the world?
You can convince a kid a dog turd is cool and he'll buy one.
Not only will you not convince an adult dog turds are cool, they wouldn't buy them even if you COULD convince them they were cool.It's easy to steal from the naive.
That's why RIAA music is geared to kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832184</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1264004280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real purpose of libraries in America is an adjunct to public education; to make available and instill in individuals the knowledge to identify threats to liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny. It is meant to protect a "government by the people" from becoming one run by an elite ruling class. As such, the presence of "entertainment" in a library is secondary.</p><p>Sadly, and although it is anecdotal, over the last couple decades I have noticed in the communities I have lived in a shift away from libraries being repositories of knowledge and instead becoming little more than entertainment "rental" establishments.</p><p>The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs, CDs, and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section. I would guess that at my current library, only about 20-25\% of the selections are non-fiction.</p><p>Obviously, libraries are failing at their purpose to the same degree that the public education system is, with the former serving more to distract than teach, and the latter to train for wage slavery rather than to truly educate.</p><p>The American experiment was an interesting idea even if it is failing completely at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real purpose of libraries in America is an adjunct to public education ; to make available and instill in individuals the knowledge to identify threats to liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny .
It is meant to protect a " government by the people " from becoming one run by an elite ruling class .
As such , the presence of " entertainment " in a library is secondary.Sadly , and although it is anecdotal , over the last couple decades I have noticed in the communities I have lived in a shift away from libraries being repositories of knowledge and instead becoming little more than entertainment " rental " establishments.The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs , CDs , and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section .
I would guess that at my current library , only about 20-25 \ % of the selections are non-fiction.Obviously , libraries are failing at their purpose to the same degree that the public education system is , with the former serving more to distract than teach , and the latter to train for wage slavery rather than to truly educate.The American experiment was an interesting idea even if it is failing completely at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real purpose of libraries in America is an adjunct to public education; to make available and instill in individuals the knowledge to identify threats to liberty and prevent the rise of tyranny.
It is meant to protect a "government by the people" from becoming one run by an elite ruling class.
As such, the presence of "entertainment" in a library is secondary.Sadly, and although it is anecdotal, over the last couple decades I have noticed in the communities I have lived in a shift away from libraries being repositories of knowledge and instead becoming little more than entertainment "rental" establishments.The fiction sections keeping getting larger and larger and the inclusion of DVDs, CDs, and other media have all come at the expense of the non-fiction section.
I would guess that at my current library, only about 20-25\% of the selections are non-fiction.Obviously, libraries are failing at their purpose to the same degree that the public education system is, with the former serving more to distract than teach, and the latter to train for wage slavery rather than to truly educate.The American experiment was an interesting idea even if it is failing completely at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833542</id>
	<title>Re:COMMUNISM IS THE FUTURE!</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1264009080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parent isn't off topic.  The summary suggests outsider's dismay over "outlandish salaries" in the music biz.  To say there should be an upper limit on income, is to say that some sort of regulating agency (presumably government) should see to it that incomes are leveled.  At the extreme end, a burger flipper dropout would be seen as having a "right" to the same income as a doctor or other highly trained professional.  To someone making $16k per year, a $200k salary likely seems quite outlandish and "fairness" would require spreading the wealth a bit.  Of course, that would require punishing the people who actually try to succeed, and reward those who make little effort.  Anyway, you can agree with the parent post or not, but it was directly respondive to a line in the summary and is thus, not offtopic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent is n't off topic .
The summary suggests outsider 's dismay over " outlandish salaries " in the music biz .
To say there should be an upper limit on income , is to say that some sort of regulating agency ( presumably government ) should see to it that incomes are leveled .
At the extreme end , a burger flipper dropout would be seen as having a " right " to the same income as a doctor or other highly trained professional .
To someone making $ 16k per year , a $ 200k salary likely seems quite outlandish and " fairness " would require spreading the wealth a bit .
Of course , that would require punishing the people who actually try to succeed , and reward those who make little effort .
Anyway , you can agree with the parent post or not , but it was directly respondive to a line in the summary and is thus , not offtopic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent isn't off topic.
The summary suggests outsider's dismay over "outlandish salaries" in the music biz.
To say there should be an upper limit on income, is to say that some sort of regulating agency (presumably government) should see to it that incomes are leveled.
At the extreme end, a burger flipper dropout would be seen as having a "right" to the same income as a doctor or other highly trained professional.
To someone making $16k per year, a $200k salary likely seems quite outlandish and "fairness" would require spreading the wealth a bit.
Of course, that would require punishing the people who actually try to succeed, and reward those who make little effort.
Anyway, you can agree with the parent post or not, but it was directly respondive to a line in the summary and is thus, not offtopic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831874</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't understand why he thinks artists need record labels.</p><p>Because you're in the business? Have been for years? You fully understand how everything in the entertainment business works? From the creative process all the way down.</p><p>Nope. Because you have an idea in your head that you will defend even in the face of the evidence.</p><p>Welcome to the world of Intelligent Design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't understand why he thinks artists need record labels.Because you 're in the business ?
Have been for years ?
You fully understand how everything in the entertainment business works ?
From the creative process all the way down.Nope .
Because you have an idea in your head that you will defend even in the face of the evidence.Welcome to the world of Intelligent Design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't understand why he thinks artists need record labels.Because you're in the business?
Have been for years?
You fully understand how everything in the entertainment business works?
From the creative process all the way down.Nope.
Because you have an idea in your head that you will defend even in the face of the evidence.Welcome to the world of Intelligent Design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831598</id>
	<title>Music should be free</title>
	<author>Rmorph</author>
	<datestamp>1264001520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as an amateur musician who hosts his own music for free on the internet.
<br> 
<br> 

If music is "good" (opinions will vary according to taste) people will listen to it repeatedly, word will spread, and people will become fans of the creators of that music - wanting to own something to demonstrate their fandom: A CD, an MP3, a t-shirt, a ticket to the next gig etc...
This is what makes getting fans more important than "selling cds" to most artists. Fans are LOVE followed by INCOME (You're not going to stop a year old girl from buying the next Hanna Montana, for example).
<br> 
<br> 
Distributors (most labels), on the other hand, are only interested in those revenue streams they can tie up for shortterm income - which creates one-hit-wonders, mediocre boybands, and starves out 99\% of musicians - as well as actually alienating real fans and bands - driving a wedge between them. (for example: many record companies hold the rights to most full times bands music - and can override a bands decision on how they want to get their material out to fans, as exemplified in the article above).
<br> 
<br> 
Now: If it's not "good" music to begin with -. people won't listen to it -despite whether it is freely available or not. People *might* check it out out of curiosity - but won't return, and certainly won't put money into it if the y have a choice.
If they did already they will feel burned.
<br> 
<br> 
Professional distributors promote very much according to a "pay-to-try policy: they limit access to the extra songs on albums, demand roylaties from indy web radio stations..control the airwaves and promote airplay for only the (most commercial track) single across any medium (radio, itunes etc) that will take it.
This is why so much "Bad music" gets aired - in case you wonder why the charts are filled with shite (But you already knew that cos its a conspiracy theory and this is Slashdot).
<br> 
<br> 
Anyway: The income generated from "good music" by fans is largely independent of this supersale effort by the labels.... so arguably the best model for these bands, as exemplified by bands like Radiohead and 9-inch... is to actually give the shit away for free: They can recoup the "first sale" profit by attracting more fans.
Ironically most musicians have dreamed of "The record deal" since they were 5 years old... so usually they are actually the most reluctant to risk this sales model - preferring the safety of servitude to a label over the risk of pushing "valueless music" (if its free it aint worth much, right?).
<br> 
<br> 
<br> 
<br> 
Also: as this model starts to become more popular.. a lot of smaller bands will get lost in the noise. Maybe less millionaires will get made, but in the long run this is a much better world to play music in. I like it anyway.. but then I found a day job.
<br> 
<br> 
Shameless plug: My music (with money goes mouth) is available at <a href="http://www.stabbingpixies.com/" title="stabbingpixies.com" rel="nofollow">Stabbing Pixies</a> [stabbingpixies.com]/

 it will never hit the Billboards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but I'm happy to make music I like - which you are free to listen to and not have to like or pay for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as an amateur musician who hosts his own music for free on the internet .
If music is " good " ( opinions will vary according to taste ) people will listen to it repeatedly , word will spread , and people will become fans of the creators of that music - wanting to own something to demonstrate their fandom : A CD , an MP3 , a t-shirt , a ticket to the next gig etc.. . This is what makes getting fans more important than " selling cds " to most artists .
Fans are LOVE followed by INCOME ( You 're not going to stop a year old girl from buying the next Hanna Montana , for example ) .
Distributors ( most labels ) , on the other hand , are only interested in those revenue streams they can tie up for shortterm income - which creates one-hit-wonders , mediocre boybands , and starves out 99 \ % of musicians - as well as actually alienating real fans and bands - driving a wedge between them .
( for example : many record companies hold the rights to most full times bands music - and can override a bands decision on how they want to get their material out to fans , as exemplified in the article above ) .
Now : If it 's not " good " music to begin with - .
people wo n't listen to it -despite whether it is freely available or not .
People * might * check it out out of curiosity - but wo n't return , and certainly wo n't put money into it if the y have a choice .
If they did already they will feel burned .
Professional distributors promote very much according to a " pay-to-try policy : they limit access to the extra songs on albums , demand roylaties from indy web radio stations..control the airwaves and promote airplay for only the ( most commercial track ) single across any medium ( radio , itunes etc ) that will take it .
This is why so much " Bad music " gets aired - in case you wonder why the charts are filled with shite ( But you already knew that cos its a conspiracy theory and this is Slashdot ) .
Anyway : The income generated from " good music " by fans is largely independent of this supersale effort by the labels.... so arguably the best model for these bands , as exemplified by bands like Radiohead and 9-inch... is to actually give the shit away for free : They can recoup the " first sale " profit by attracting more fans .
Ironically most musicians have dreamed of " The record deal " since they were 5 years old... so usually they are actually the most reluctant to risk this sales model - preferring the safety of servitude to a label over the risk of pushing " valueless music " ( if its free it aint worth much , right ? ) .
Also : as this model starts to become more popular.. a lot of smaller bands will get lost in the noise .
Maybe less millionaires will get made , but in the long run this is a much better world to play music in .
I like it anyway.. but then I found a day job .
Shameless plug : My music ( with money goes mouth ) is available at Stabbing Pixies [ stabbingpixies.com ] / it will never hit the Billboards .. but I 'm happy to make music I like - which you are free to listen to and not have to like or pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as an amateur musician who hosts his own music for free on the internet.
If music is "good" (opinions will vary according to taste) people will listen to it repeatedly, word will spread, and people will become fans of the creators of that music - wanting to own something to demonstrate their fandom: A CD, an MP3, a t-shirt, a ticket to the next gig etc...
This is what makes getting fans more important than "selling cds" to most artists.
Fans are LOVE followed by INCOME (You're not going to stop a year old girl from buying the next Hanna Montana, for example).
Distributors (most labels), on the other hand, are only interested in those revenue streams they can tie up for shortterm income - which creates one-hit-wonders, mediocre boybands, and starves out 99\% of musicians - as well as actually alienating real fans and bands - driving a wedge between them.
(for example: many record companies hold the rights to most full times bands music - and can override a bands decision on how they want to get their material out to fans, as exemplified in the article above).
Now: If it's not "good" music to begin with -.
people won't listen to it -despite whether it is freely available or not.
People *might* check it out out of curiosity - but won't return, and certainly won't put money into it if the y have a choice.
If they did already they will feel burned.
Professional distributors promote very much according to a "pay-to-try policy: they limit access to the extra songs on albums, demand roylaties from indy web radio stations..control the airwaves and promote airplay for only the (most commercial track) single across any medium (radio, itunes etc) that will take it.
This is why so much "Bad music" gets aired - in case you wonder why the charts are filled with shite (But you already knew that cos its a conspiracy theory and this is Slashdot).
Anyway: The income generated from "good music" by fans is largely independent of this supersale effort by the labels.... so arguably the best model for these bands, as exemplified by bands like Radiohead and 9-inch... is to actually give the shit away for free: They can recoup the "first sale" profit by attracting more fans.
Ironically most musicians have dreamed of "The record deal" since they were 5 years old... so usually they are actually the most reluctant to risk this sales model - preferring the safety of servitude to a label over the risk of pushing "valueless music" (if its free it aint worth much, right?).
Also: as this model starts to become more popular.. a lot of smaller bands will get lost in the noise.
Maybe less millionaires will get made, but in the long run this is a much better world to play music in.
I like it anyway.. but then I found a day job.
Shameless plug: My music (with money goes mouth) is available at Stabbing Pixies [stabbingpixies.com]/

 it will never hit the Billboards .. but I'm happy to make music I like - which you are free to listen to and not have to like or pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831838</id>
	<title>Get out of the damned studios</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1264002660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never understood why bands spend months recording 30 minutes of music when they perform the same music live ALL THE FREAKING TIME.  I myself would rather hear live music than stale perfection.  How many takes do you have to splice to make one single recording -- how can you even call it your music any more when it is the recording editor who does all the hard work of listening for pointless variations in takes to make a recording which is going to be heard thru earbuds anyway?</p><p>I know why.  It's because labels are parasites and have to make money off musicians somehow, and the easy days of controlling airplay and distribution are gone.  It's got to come from somewhere, so they put it in the contract that you have to spend x hours in the studio to produce an album.</p><p>I don't expect bands to produce an album in one day, but months?  Sorry, you are letting them rip you off.  I would rather listen to a good band produce their own stuff in their garage or even rent a studio themselves for just a few days, and use a Mac to edit it themselves.  Wake up!  This is an age where YOU can control your own destiny.  Stop signing slave contracts with labels and then making up excuses for their abominable behavior.</p><p>I have no respect for bands who sell their souls in exchange for the very remote possibility of being the next megahit.  Just do what you do, be good, have fun, make a good enough living, and if you become superstars, great, but don't sell your souls to let the parasites make that decision based merely on how much of a toady you can be.  If you want the parasites to decide your life for you, you are no longer artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never understood why bands spend months recording 30 minutes of music when they perform the same music live ALL THE FREAKING TIME .
I myself would rather hear live music than stale perfection .
How many takes do you have to splice to make one single recording -- how can you even call it your music any more when it is the recording editor who does all the hard work of listening for pointless variations in takes to make a recording which is going to be heard thru earbuds anyway ? I know why .
It 's because labels are parasites and have to make money off musicians somehow , and the easy days of controlling airplay and distribution are gone .
It 's got to come from somewhere , so they put it in the contract that you have to spend x hours in the studio to produce an album.I do n't expect bands to produce an album in one day , but months ?
Sorry , you are letting them rip you off .
I would rather listen to a good band produce their own stuff in their garage or even rent a studio themselves for just a few days , and use a Mac to edit it themselves .
Wake up !
This is an age where YOU can control your own destiny .
Stop signing slave contracts with labels and then making up excuses for their abominable behavior.I have no respect for bands who sell their souls in exchange for the very remote possibility of being the next megahit .
Just do what you do , be good , have fun , make a good enough living , and if you become superstars , great , but do n't sell your souls to let the parasites make that decision based merely on how much of a toady you can be .
If you want the parasites to decide your life for you , you are no longer artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never understood why bands spend months recording 30 minutes of music when they perform the same music live ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
I myself would rather hear live music than stale perfection.
How many takes do you have to splice to make one single recording -- how can you even call it your music any more when it is the recording editor who does all the hard work of listening for pointless variations in takes to make a recording which is going to be heard thru earbuds anyway?I know why.
It's because labels are parasites and have to make money off musicians somehow, and the easy days of controlling airplay and distribution are gone.
It's got to come from somewhere, so they put it in the contract that you have to spend x hours in the studio to produce an album.I don't expect bands to produce an album in one day, but months?
Sorry, you are letting them rip you off.
I would rather listen to a good band produce their own stuff in their garage or even rent a studio themselves for just a few days, and use a Mac to edit it themselves.
Wake up!
This is an age where YOU can control your own destiny.
Stop signing slave contracts with labels and then making up excuses for their abominable behavior.I have no respect for bands who sell their souls in exchange for the very remote possibility of being the next megahit.
Just do what you do, be good, have fun, make a good enough living, and if you become superstars, great, but don't sell your souls to let the parasites make that decision based merely on how much of a toady you can be.
If you want the parasites to decide your life for you, you are no longer artists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831178</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1263999540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if it's that easy why haven't banks pushed into lending to musicians before and instead poured money into RE? reason is that most music acts lose money and banks like stability with a lower interest rate than lending to 10 acts and losing money on 9 of them. banks also want something called collateral in a lot of cases. a lot of rich people like Annie Lebowitz who borrowed a lot of live in luxury put up a lot of their works and property as collateral. same with Michael Jackson. He signed over a lot of property to hedge funds and now everyone is monetizing his name to pay off his debts</p><p>this is where record companies come in who act like venture capitalists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if it 's that easy why have n't banks pushed into lending to musicians before and instead poured money into RE ?
reason is that most music acts lose money and banks like stability with a lower interest rate than lending to 10 acts and losing money on 9 of them .
banks also want something called collateral in a lot of cases .
a lot of rich people like Annie Lebowitz who borrowed a lot of live in luxury put up a lot of their works and property as collateral .
same with Michael Jackson .
He signed over a lot of property to hedge funds and now everyone is monetizing his name to pay off his debtsthis is where record companies come in who act like venture capitalists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it's that easy why haven't banks pushed into lending to musicians before and instead poured money into RE?
reason is that most music acts lose money and banks like stability with a lower interest rate than lending to 10 acts and losing money on 9 of them.
banks also want something called collateral in a lot of cases.
a lot of rich people like Annie Lebowitz who borrowed a lot of live in luxury put up a lot of their works and property as collateral.
same with Michael Jackson.
He signed over a lot of property to hedge funds and now everyone is monetizing his name to pay off his debtsthis is where record companies come in who act like venture capitalists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834816</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1264014120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words:  Independent Contractors</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : Independent Contractors</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words:  Independent Contractors</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832872</id>
	<title>Bigger problem</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1264006920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are three factors here.  <p>1.   The music industry has become a leach.   They started out as doing three things - producing, marketing and distributing.  Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for (transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult, vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem.  Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier, but still heavy.)   But a better producer and marketer made more money, so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing.  No.   They were being paid for distributing, and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has.   They still try to charge as if they are distributing, but they are not.
</p><p>
2.  Musicians still need Producing and Marketing, but those are worth only about 20\% or MAYBE 30\% of sales, not 80\% that the big labels have.  But the existing monoplies (that grew up charging 80\% for distribution) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing (no distribution).  This problem will eventually go away, but it will take time.
</p><p>
3.  The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out.  The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones.  We need a new SYSTEM, not of distrubtion, but of funneling money.
</p><p>What we need is a breakthrough in marketing.  Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage, and gradually increases as they gain more fans.  Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson, ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways.   Also, musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live.  People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly, recordings are commodities.
</p><p>Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee, similar to a gym membership.  Each night the club offers live music performed.  Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club's bands.   </p><p>Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three factors here .
1. The music industry has become a leach .
They started out as doing three things - producing , marketing and distributing .
Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for ( transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult , vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem .
Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier , but still heavy .
) But a better producer and marketer made more money , so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing .
No. They were being paid for distributing , and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has .
They still try to charge as if they are distributing , but they are not .
2. Musicians still need Producing and Marketing , but those are worth only about 20 \ % or MAYBE 30 \ % of sales , not 80 \ % that the big labels have .
But the existing monoplies ( that grew up charging 80 \ % for distribution ) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing ( no distribution ) .
This problem will eventually go away , but it will take time .
3. The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out .
The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways ' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones .
We need a new SYSTEM , not of distrubtion , but of funneling money .
What we need is a breakthrough in marketing .
Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage , and gradually increases as they gain more fans .
Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson , ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways .
Also , musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live .
People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly , recordings are commodities .
Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee , similar to a gym membership .
Each night the club offers live music performed .
Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club 's bands .
Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three factors here.
1.   The music industry has become a leach.
They started out as doing three things - producing, marketing and distributing.
Distributing was the hard work and where the customers were willing to pay big money for (transporting delicate wax tubes was very dificult, vinyl was slightly better but breakage was still a big problem.
Tapes and CDs were lighter and sturdier, but still heavy.
)   But a better producer and marketer made more money, so they THOUGHT they were being paid for producing and marketing.
No.   They were being paid for distributing, and that market has vanished the way the buggy whip and the horse drawn carriage market has.
They still try to charge as if they are distributing, but they are not.
2.  Musicians still need Producing and Marketing, but those are worth only about 20\% or MAYBE 30\% of sales, not 80\% that the big labels have.
But the existing monoplies (that grew up charging 80\% for distribution) make it hard to break in to the Producing + Marketing (no distribution).
This problem will eventually go away, but it will take time.
3.  The old distrubution system was so big and powerfull that it evolved into THE methods of transferring money to the musicians as well as the way to transfer music out.
The ease of distrubtion has created a ton of tiny producers and removed the old 'gateways' that funnelled money and goods to the succesfull ones.
We need a new SYSTEM, not of distrubtion, but of funneling money.
What we need is a breakthrough in marketing.
Something that lets low level musicians earn a living wage, and gradually increases as they gain more fans.
Note there may never be a band as big as the Beatles or Elvis or M. Jackson, ever again because of the greater range of music that should be available without the gateways.
Also, musicians will likely never again be able to make money without performing live.
People will always pay more to see live music than they will for a recording because honestly, recordings are commodities.
Perhaps music clubs could form in large cities where people pay a set fee, similar to a gym membership.
Each night the club offers live music performed.
Membership lets you in for free AND lets you download the music for free whenever you want from any oif the club's bands.
Or maybe somethign far better than what I can think of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831588</id>
	<title>Re:Um, what was that argument again?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264001520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you actually read the article? It was the six months producing the album that the track behind the video was taken from that cost all the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you actually read the article ?
It was the six months producing the album that the track behind the video was taken from that cost all the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you actually read the article?
It was the six months producing the album that the track behind the video was taken from that cost all the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831354</id>
	<title>Re:Other artist's insight</title>
	<author>rschwa</author>
	<datestamp>1264000560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found <a href="http://www.toomuchjoy.com/?p=1397" title="toomuchjoy.com">this</a> [toomuchjoy.com] an interesting look at how labels treat their bands, and it kind of straddles the 'digital revolution'. It's a blog entry about an unrecouped band trying to get digital sales credited on their statement, to hilarious effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this [ toomuchjoy.com ] an interesting look at how labels treat their bands , and it kind of straddles the 'digital revolution' .
It 's a blog entry about an unrecouped band trying to get digital sales credited on their statement , to hilarious effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this [toomuchjoy.com] an interesting look at how labels treat their bands, and it kind of straddles the 'digital revolution'.
It's a blog entry about an unrecouped band trying to get digital sales credited on their statement, to hilarious effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831388</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1264000680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.  What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.</p> </div><p>There's an assumption implicit here that is all too common: That music needs to be a business, or even that record sales, radio play, the stuff record companies are seen to be good for, are a viable source of income for a large portion of musicians these days. Most of the bands and projects I listen to are far too obscure to make any significant cash on sales of recordings. They don't get any radio play worth mentioning. They know selling music is not, and never will be, something they can rely on as a significant source of income. Still, they continue to make great music, maybe making some cash off gigs, probably making most of their money from something quite separate from their band work. <br> <br>So the people treating music as a business - feel free to do so, but if you fail to attain the level of profitability you deem necessary, I'm not inclined to jump through hoops to make the world more suitable for your needs. Anyone complaining that music is becoming too difficult to draw a profit from, and that artists will suffer from that is forgetting that the majority of artists already don't, and never will, make enough money to live off. The group of artists that sells enough records and gets enough radio play to get significant income from it is very small and I'm quite prepared to live without them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also do n't understand why he thinks that artists 'need ' record labels .
What they 'need ' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss ' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain .
There 's an assumption implicit here that is all too common : That music needs to be a business , or even that record sales , radio play , the stuff record companies are seen to be good for , are a viable source of income for a large portion of musicians these days .
Most of the bands and projects I listen to are far too obscure to make any significant cash on sales of recordings .
They do n't get any radio play worth mentioning .
They know selling music is not , and never will be , something they can rely on as a significant source of income .
Still , they continue to make great music , maybe making some cash off gigs , probably making most of their money from something quite separate from their band work .
So the people treating music as a business - feel free to do so , but if you fail to attain the level of profitability you deem necessary , I 'm not inclined to jump through hoops to make the world more suitable for your needs .
Anyone complaining that music is becoming too difficult to draw a profit from , and that artists will suffer from that is forgetting that the majority of artists already do n't , and never will , make enough money to live off .
The group of artists that sells enough records and gets enough radio play to get significant income from it is very small and I 'm quite prepared to live without them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.
What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.
There's an assumption implicit here that is all too common: That music needs to be a business, or even that record sales, radio play, the stuff record companies are seen to be good for, are a viable source of income for a large portion of musicians these days.
Most of the bands and projects I listen to are far too obscure to make any significant cash on sales of recordings.
They don't get any radio play worth mentioning.
They know selling music is not, and never will be, something they can rely on as a significant source of income.
Still, they continue to make great music, maybe making some cash off gigs, probably making most of their money from something quite separate from their band work.
So the people treating music as a business - feel free to do so, but if you fail to attain the level of profitability you deem necessary, I'm not inclined to jump through hoops to make the world more suitable for your needs.
Anyone complaining that music is becoming too difficult to draw a profit from, and that artists will suffer from that is forgetting that the majority of artists already don't, and never will, make enough money to live off.
The group of artists that sells enough records and gets enough radio play to get significant income from it is very small and I'm quite prepared to live without them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830940</id>
	<title>Microsoft got it right with Zune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>never had a Zune, but liked the Zune Pass idea. too much music out there to buy all the CD's i'd want to listen to. at some point it's wasted money having hundreds of CD's sitting around being listened to once a year or less often. I'd rather just pay $15 a month to rent the music. I wouldn't trust Real with it. Zune was just a crappy device compared to the iphone/touch. too much wasted potential of it being just a music player. Apple I would trust to pay for this service. Google is spyware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>never had a Zune , but liked the Zune Pass idea .
too much music out there to buy all the CD 's i 'd want to listen to .
at some point it 's wasted money having hundreds of CD 's sitting around being listened to once a year or less often .
I 'd rather just pay $ 15 a month to rent the music .
I would n't trust Real with it .
Zune was just a crappy device compared to the iphone/touch .
too much wasted potential of it being just a music player .
Apple I would trust to pay for this service .
Google is spyware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>never had a Zune, but liked the Zune Pass idea.
too much music out there to buy all the CD's i'd want to listen to.
at some point it's wasted money having hundreds of CD's sitting around being listened to once a year or less often.
I'd rather just pay $15 a month to rent the music.
I wouldn't trust Real with it.
Zune was just a crappy device compared to the iphone/touch.
too much wasted potential of it being just a music player.
Apple I would trust to pay for this service.
Google is spyware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832502</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264005600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That is a bizarre example to give.
<br>
At least here in the UK, libraries are funded out of taxes, they don't make a profit; and yes, you have "free" access in the sense that you don't have to pay again to use something you've already paid for.
<br>
  The book publishers are paid for their books, they're not giving them away for free.
<br>But who's making money out of this "free" service?<br>
I don't understand your point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion that if you give data away you ca n't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again .
Libraries have been around for centuries ; you can walk in , check out an armful of books for free , and read them , and go back for more .
Even a small city 's library has more books than one could read , and they 're constantly updated with more .
That is a bizarre example to give .
At least here in the UK , libraries are funded out of taxes , they do n't make a profit ; and yes , you have " free " access in the sense that you do n't have to pay again to use something you 've already paid for .
The book publishers are paid for their books , they 're not giving them away for free .
But who 's making money out of this " free " service ?
I do n't understand your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again.
Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more.
Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.
That is a bizarre example to give.
At least here in the UK, libraries are funded out of taxes, they don't make a profit; and yes, you have "free" access in the sense that you don't have to pay again to use something you've already paid for.
The book publishers are paid for their books, they're not giving them away for free.
But who's making money out of this "free" service?
I don't understand your point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830954</id>
	<title>Promotion</title>
	<author>whencanistop</author>
	<datestamp>1263998040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds to me a bit like the music video was always meant to be a product that Musicians could use as a method of promoting themselves so they could make money on the things that actually made money.<br>
<br>
This used to be selling CDs.  Seeing as nobody buys CDs any more, this should be music downloads or live tours/merchandise.  (I'm sure someone with a bit more time on their hands can dig out a link to that graph showing which people are making money out of music now).<br>
<br>
If your record label is spending a fortune on making your video and then not allowing certain countries to see it, then you're not going to be making money from those countries (or not as much as you could).  It's not like there is an incremental cost involved in allowing it to go on other blogs/other country's youtube.  It's just that the record label is being greedy because they think they can get some money out of them, at the cost of the band's image.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me a bit like the music video was always meant to be a product that Musicians could use as a method of promoting themselves so they could make money on the things that actually made money .
This used to be selling CDs .
Seeing as nobody buys CDs any more , this should be music downloads or live tours/merchandise .
( I 'm sure someone with a bit more time on their hands can dig out a link to that graph showing which people are making money out of music now ) .
If your record label is spending a fortune on making your video and then not allowing certain countries to see it , then you 're not going to be making money from those countries ( or not as much as you could ) .
It 's not like there is an incremental cost involved in allowing it to go on other blogs/other country 's youtube .
It 's just that the record label is being greedy because they think they can get some money out of them , at the cost of the band 's image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me a bit like the music video was always meant to be a product that Musicians could use as a method of promoting themselves so they could make money on the things that actually made money.
This used to be selling CDs.
Seeing as nobody buys CDs any more, this should be music downloads or live tours/merchandise.
(I'm sure someone with a bit more time on their hands can dig out a link to that graph showing which people are making money out of music now).
If your record label is spending a fortune on making your video and then not allowing certain countries to see it, then you're not going to be making money from those countries (or not as much as you could).
It's not like there is an incremental cost involved in allowing it to go on other blogs/other country's youtube.
It's just that the record label is being greedy because they think they can get some money out of them, at the cost of the band's image.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830898</id>
	<title>My shits are meant to be smelled!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, I'm Jeffery. I aspire to become a professional shitter. You see, shitting is more than just a hobby to me. It is a calling; a way of life!</p><p>I take a lot of care in eating foods that will enhance the smell and nosefeel of my defecations. Trust me, it isn't an easy task crafting the perfect turd. But I do it day in and day out, because I want to offer the world my best shits possible. In return for my hard work, all I ask is that you give me some money when you smell one of my delicious poops.</p><p>Now, I've been hearing that some people are smelling the shits of other people, and not paying for it. Some people even smell their own cacas! Did you know that fecal piracy is wrong? It deprives artists like myself the funds we need to live.</p><p>Please, think of artists like myself the next time you smell shit that you didn't pay for. If you don't repay me for the glorious turds I leave for you, then I'll have to get a real job like everyone else, and that would be a terrible thing. My stools are a gift to the world, and should be shared with all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , I 'm Jeffery .
I aspire to become a professional shitter .
You see , shitting is more than just a hobby to me .
It is a calling ; a way of life ! I take a lot of care in eating foods that will enhance the smell and nosefeel of my defecations .
Trust me , it is n't an easy task crafting the perfect turd .
But I do it day in and day out , because I want to offer the world my best shits possible .
In return for my hard work , all I ask is that you give me some money when you smell one of my delicious poops.Now , I 've been hearing that some people are smelling the shits of other people , and not paying for it .
Some people even smell their own cacas !
Did you know that fecal piracy is wrong ?
It deprives artists like myself the funds we need to live.Please , think of artists like myself the next time you smell shit that you did n't pay for .
If you do n't repay me for the glorious turds I leave for you , then I 'll have to get a real job like everyone else , and that would be a terrible thing .
My stools are a gift to the world , and should be shared with all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, I'm Jeffery.
I aspire to become a professional shitter.
You see, shitting is more than just a hobby to me.
It is a calling; a way of life!I take a lot of care in eating foods that will enhance the smell and nosefeel of my defecations.
Trust me, it isn't an easy task crafting the perfect turd.
But I do it day in and day out, because I want to offer the world my best shits possible.
In return for my hard work, all I ask is that you give me some money when you smell one of my delicious poops.Now, I've been hearing that some people are smelling the shits of other people, and not paying for it.
Some people even smell their own cacas!
Did you know that fecal piracy is wrong?
It deprives artists like myself the funds we need to live.Please, think of artists like myself the next time you smell shit that you didn't pay for.
If you don't repay me for the glorious turds I leave for you, then I'll have to get a real job like everyone else, and that would be a terrible thing.
My stools are a gift to the world, and should be shared with all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30843176</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1264105140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For YouTube embedded players, clicking on the video will open the YouTube page in a new window/tab.
Which, incidentally, I find annoying, as I expect it to pause, as it would on YouTube.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For YouTube embedded players , clicking on the video will open the YouTube page in a new window/tab .
Which , incidentally , I find annoying , as I expect it to pause , as it would on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For YouTube embedded players, clicking on the video will open the YouTube page in a new window/tab.
Which, incidentally, I find annoying, as I expect it to pause, as it would on YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1264003500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I highly recommend the movie Anvil before you make these kind of ridiculous claims again. The problem with these claims is they assume that bands have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants. Oddly enough it's possible the musicians might NOT be good at one or more of these thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly recommend the movie Anvil before you make these kind of ridiculous claims again .
The problem with these claims is they assume that bands have the time and skills to be marketeers , travel and booking agents , and accountants .
Oddly enough it 's possible the musicians might NOT be good at one or more of these thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly recommend the movie Anvil before you make these kind of ridiculous claims again.
The problem with these claims is they assume that bands have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants.
Oddly enough it's possible the musicians might NOT be good at one or more of these thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831410</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>i\_ate\_god</author>
	<datestamp>1264000800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books <b>for free</b>, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.</p><p>The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.</p><p>The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.</p><p>If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list. Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website. The forward to <i>Little Brother</i> explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.</p></div><p>So, what you're saying is that you support DRM? Because that's what a library is. It's a place to temporarily get your hands on content, consume it, and then give it back. You have no rights to copy/distribute the work you BORROWED. That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is. You borrow that content. People really need to stop using libraries as some sort of "proof" that free access to content does not deprive money from the creator of the content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion that if you give data away you ca n't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again .
Libraries have been around for centuries ; you can walk in , check out an armful of books for free , and read them , and go back for more .
Even a small city 's library has more books than one could read , and they 're constantly updated with more.The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales .
Instead , it sold more records .
The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry , but instead it got more people interested in movies .
They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry , look what happened .
The music industry thought cassettes would kill it , but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.The established industry is going about digital data backwards .
They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.If giving it away meant that you could n't sell it , Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list .
Besides libraries , you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website .
The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment ; I urge everyone to read that book , or at least the forward.So , what you 're saying is that you support DRM ?
Because that 's what a library is .
It 's a place to temporarily get your hands on content , consume it , and then give it back .
You have no rights to copy/distribute the work you BORROWED .
That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is .
You borrow that content .
People really need to stop using libraries as some sort of " proof " that free access to content does not deprive money from the creator of the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again.
Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more.
Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales.
Instead, it sold more records.
The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies.
They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened.
The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.The established industry is going about digital data backwards.
They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list.
Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website.
The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.So, what you're saying is that you support DRM?
Because that's what a library is.
It's a place to temporarily get your hands on content, consume it, and then give it back.
You have no rights to copy/distribute the work you BORROWED.
That is what a DRM'ed DVD or MP3 is.
You borrow that content.
People really need to stop using libraries as some sort of "proof" that free access to content does not deprive money from the creator of the content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831872</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>iB1</author>
	<datestamp>1264002840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Concert tickets and T-Shirts</htmltext>
<tokenext>Concert tickets and T-Shirts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concert tickets and T-Shirts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830980</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>MRe\_nl</author>
	<datestamp>1263998220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the replies to the article sounds like a record company person, and i think part of it sums it up quit succinctly;<br>"Need" is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things, none of which are *necessary*. To achieve those things, you needed some money you didn't have, and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music, in exchange for the advance money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the replies to the article sounds like a record company person , and i think part of it sums it up quit succinctly ; " Need " is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things , none of which are * necessary * .
To achieve those things , you needed some money you did n't have , and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music , in exchange for the advance money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the replies to the article sounds like a record company person, and i think part of it sums it up quit succinctly;"Need" is obviously contingent on your band wanting to achieve certain things, none of which are *necessary*.
To achieve those things, you needed some money you didn't have, and decided to sacrifice some freedom with your music, in exchange for the advance money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833456</id>
	<title>Re:Musicians need labels to become famous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I completely agree that having a major record-label  contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven? The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today. Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.</p></div><p>They had patronage - you don't hear of that happening very often. In fact, I might be able to name about 20-30 artists from pre-1900s. I can name about 10 times that for artists in the last 10 years (Each band has approx. 4 members, I easily know 50 bands).</p><p>While I do not support the RIAA activities, I do believe that artists are likely to get more exposure from record labels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success .
To that end , can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven ?
The thing is , those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today .
Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience .
Today , that 's nearly impossible.They had patronage - you do n't hear of that happening very often .
In fact , I might be able to name about 20-30 artists from pre-1900s .
I can name about 10 times that for artists in the last 10 years ( Each band has approx .
4 members , I easily know 50 bands ) .While I do not support the RIAA activities , I do believe that artists are likely to get more exposure from record labels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree that having a major record-label  contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success.
To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?
The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today.
Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience.
Today, that's nearly impossible.They had patronage - you don't hear of that happening very often.
In fact, I might be able to name about 20-30 artists from pre-1900s.
I can name about 10 times that for artists in the last 10 years (Each band has approx.
4 members, I easily know 50 bands).While I do not support the RIAA activities, I do believe that artists are likely to get more exposure from record labels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264000560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.</p></div><p>In an increasingly virtual world, what physical items are you going to be selling? Food and shelter?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The established industry is going about digital data backwards .
They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.In an increasingly virtual world , what physical items are you going to be selling ?
Food and shelter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The established industry is going about digital data backwards.
They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.In an increasingly virtual world, what physical items are you going to be selling?
Food and shelter?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833244</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1264008060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party.  Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party?  I assure you, he would not.  Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.</p><p>As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true.  While the percentage is certainly lower, 40\% of a million dollars is far greater than \%80 of $100,000.</p><p>As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to.  If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard.  If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when do you have time to make music?  Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion.  I may have totally missed your point here though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party .
Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party ?
I assure you , he would not .
Likewise , no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.As to your argument about a " huge reduction in your personal profit , " that simply is n't true .
While the percentage is certainly lower , 40 \ % of a million dollars is far greater than \ % 80 of $ 100,000.As to your argument about " get the promotion your music warrants on its own , " I 'm not sure what you 're referring to .
If you 're talking about the Internet , you 're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard .
If you 're talking about booking your own radio tours , making your own posters , etc ... when do you have time to make music ?
Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion .
I may have totally missed your point here though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason a politician aligns himself with a major political party.
Would Obama be president right now without the backing of the Democratic party?
I assure you, he would not.
Likewise, no artist could possibly reach the levels of worldwide fame that people like Beyonce and Taylor Swift enjoy without the backing of a major label.As to your argument about a "huge reduction in your personal profit," that simply isn't true.
While the percentage is certainly lower, 40\% of a million dollars is far greater than \%80 of $100,000.As to your argument about "get the promotion your music warrants on its own," I'm not sure what you're referring to.
If you're talking about the Internet, you're just another of millions on millions of people trying to be heard.
If you're talking about booking your own radio tours, making your own posters, etc ... when do you have time to make music?
Not to mention the fact that many amazing musicians are horrible at promotion.
I may have totally missed your point here though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833176</id>
	<title>Touring for fun and profit????</title>
	<author>ThirdPrize</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't now how much you guys know about rock history but sending bands out on the road (to tour/promote the album/make a living) is probably the worst thing you could make them do.  It is the tedium between gigs on long tours that turn otherwise sane bands in to drink/drug/groupie monsters.  When you are living for that hour on stage, the remaining 23 are a huge drag.  Only way to get through them is to numb yourself till they don't exist.  Similar principle to homelessness in that respect.</p><p>The other thing is imagine being in a band and having to tour all the time just to make a living.  it's a bit like travelling salesmen.  It takes a certain sort of person and they probably don't have much of a home/family life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't now how much you guys know about rock history but sending bands out on the road ( to tour/promote the album/make a living ) is probably the worst thing you could make them do .
It is the tedium between gigs on long tours that turn otherwise sane bands in to drink/drug/groupie monsters .
When you are living for that hour on stage , the remaining 23 are a huge drag .
Only way to get through them is to numb yourself till they do n't exist .
Similar principle to homelessness in that respect.The other thing is imagine being in a band and having to tour all the time just to make a living .
it 's a bit like travelling salesmen .
It takes a certain sort of person and they probably do n't have much of a home/family life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't now how much you guys know about rock history but sending bands out on the road (to tour/promote the album/make a living) is probably the worst thing you could make them do.
It is the tedium between gigs on long tours that turn otherwise sane bands in to drink/drug/groupie monsters.
When you are living for that hour on stage, the remaining 23 are a huge drag.
Only way to get through them is to numb yourself till they don't exist.
Similar principle to homelessness in that respect.The other thing is imagine being in a band and having to tour all the time just to make a living.
it's a bit like travelling salesmen.
It takes a certain sort of person and they probably don't have much of a home/family life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831702</id>
	<title>Things you might need a label for</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1264002060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.</p></div><p>
You need a label to get phonorecords* of your work into stores because the labels have relationships with the stores' buyers, especially if your genre is more popular among people with no PC, people with a PC and no Internet, or people with PC and dial-up. (Country music and pop standards come to mind.) You need a label because the recognized experts in record marketing work for labels. In certain genres, you need a label to help clear the samples you may have used. You may even need a label to help make sure that you didn't make the same mistake George Harrison and Michael Bolton made of unintentionally making their own songs sound too much like a song that was on the radio a decade ago.
</p><p>
* Legalese for copies of a sound recording.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also do n't understand why he thinks that artists 'need ' record labels .
You need a label to get phonorecords * of your work into stores because the labels have relationships with the stores ' buyers , especially if your genre is more popular among people with no PC , people with a PC and no Internet , or people with PC and dial-up .
( Country music and pop standards come to mind .
) You need a label because the recognized experts in record marketing work for labels .
In certain genres , you need a label to help clear the samples you may have used .
You may even need a label to help make sure that you did n't make the same mistake George Harrison and Michael Bolton made of unintentionally making their own songs sound too much like a song that was on the radio a decade ago .
* Legalese for copies of a sound recording .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.
You need a label to get phonorecords* of your work into stores because the labels have relationships with the stores' buyers, especially if your genre is more popular among people with no PC, people with a PC and no Internet, or people with PC and dial-up.
(Country music and pop standards come to mind.
) You need a label because the recognized experts in record marketing work for labels.
In certain genres, you need a label to help clear the samples you may have used.
You may even need a label to help make sure that you didn't make the same mistake George Harrison and Michael Bolton made of unintentionally making their own songs sound too much like a song that was on the radio a decade ago.
* Legalese for copies of a sound recording.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833572</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article (and I trust the opinion of a career musician over random<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er on the matter)...</p><p>Your choices in summary:<br>1. Sign and have your budget for tours, music videos, and production staff quadruple, if not quintuple.<br>2. Don't sign and be able to reach out to more people (who are just going to download your music for free on the internet) while also sacrificing the ability to make better music (it's not all talent, production staff play a huge role).</p><p>No band can 'make it big' without a label.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article ( and I trust the opinion of a career musician over random /.er on the matter ) ...Your choices in summary : 1 .
Sign and have your budget for tours , music videos , and production staff quadruple , if not quintuple.2 .
Do n't sign and be able to reach out to more people ( who are just going to download your music for free on the internet ) while also sacrificing the ability to make better music ( it 's not all talent , production staff play a huge role ) .No band can 'make it big ' without a label .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article (and I trust the opinion of a career musician over random /.er on the matter)...Your choices in summary:1.
Sign and have your budget for tours, music videos, and production staff quadruple, if not quintuple.2.
Don't sign and be able to reach out to more people (who are just going to download your music for free on the internet) while also sacrificing the ability to make better music (it's not all talent, production staff play a huge role).No band can 'make it big' without a label.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831814</id>
	<title>Can't watch it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really care if the video is embedable or not but getting this message when I try to watch it makes me fracking mad:</p><p>This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really care if the video is embedable or not but getting this message when I try to watch it makes me fracking mad : This video contains content from EMI .
It is no longer available in your country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really care if the video is embedable or not but getting this message when I try to watch it makes me fracking mad:This video contains content from EMI.
It is no longer available in your country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830928</id>
	<title>Other artist's insight</title>
	<author>sean\_nestor</author>
	<datestamp>1263997800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Byrne (of Talking Heads fame) did a <a href="http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/16-01/ff\_byrne?currentPage=1" title="wired.com">fantastic article for Wired</a> [wired.com] a few years ago about this. He discusses (with details!) how the music industry works, some of the "models" of releasing music, and the economics/incentives to each one. Great read.</p><p>On a semi-related note, it's also worth looking at Steve Albini's now classic essay "<a href="http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html" title="mercenary.com">The Problem With Music</a> [mercenary.com]", which showcases how horrible the modern music industry is to musicians. It was written before the whole "digital revolution", but it helps remind me why I don't feel sympathy for suits in the music business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Byrne ( of Talking Heads fame ) did a fantastic article for Wired [ wired.com ] a few years ago about this .
He discusses ( with details !
) how the music industry works , some of the " models " of releasing music , and the economics/incentives to each one .
Great read.On a semi-related note , it 's also worth looking at Steve Albini 's now classic essay " The Problem With Music [ mercenary.com ] " , which showcases how horrible the modern music industry is to musicians .
It was written before the whole " digital revolution " , but it helps remind me why I do n't feel sympathy for suits in the music business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Byrne (of Talking Heads fame) did a fantastic article for Wired [wired.com] a few years ago about this.
He discusses (with details!
) how the music industry works, some of the "models" of releasing music, and the economics/incentives to each one.
Great read.On a semi-related note, it's also worth looking at Steve Albini's now classic essay "The Problem With Music [mercenary.com]", which showcases how horrible the modern music industry is to musicians.
It was written before the whole "digital revolution", but it helps remind me why I don't feel sympathy for suits in the music business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833234</id>
	<title>Re:Um, what was that argument again?</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264008060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue lots of people claiming you could get the same standard of recording/production/mastering in a bedroom studio for $1000.</p><p>Let's pre-empt them. If the band thought they could do it that cheaply, they'd do it. They don't think they can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue lots of people claiming you could get the same standard of recording/production/mastering in a bedroom studio for $ 1000.Let 's pre-empt them .
If the band thought they could do it that cheaply , they 'd do it .
They do n't think they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue lots of people claiming you could get the same standard of recording/production/mastering in a bedroom studio for $1000.Let's pre-empt them.
If the band thought they could do it that cheaply, they'd do it.
They don't think they can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832744</id>
	<title>Re:Musicians need labels to become famous</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1264006440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Didn't they have patrons instead?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To that end , can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven ?
Did n't they have patrons instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?
Didn't they have patrons instead?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835714</id>
	<title>OK Go Irish</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1264017360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice video -- at long last the Ftn' Irish have a music video that matches up to USC!<br><a href="http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/e1131685gpf3GfW" title="veoh.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/e1131685gpf3GfW</a> [veoh.com]</p><p>Now if only we could lick 'em on the field!<br>537</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice video -- at long last the Ftn ' Irish have a music video that matches up to USC ! http : //www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/e1131685gpf3GfW [ veoh.com ] Now if only we could lick 'em on the field ! 537</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice video -- at long last the Ftn' Irish have a music video that matches up to USC!http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/e1131685gpf3GfW [veoh.com]Now if only we could lick 'em on the field!537</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832068</id>
	<title>He lost me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He lost me at "the major labels are hurting." Cry me a river, those poor suits haven't missed a meal yet, though that MAFIAA-powered foot-shooting surely is painful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He lost me at " the major labels are hurting .
" Cry me a river , those poor suits have n't missed a meal yet , though that MAFIAA-powered foot-shooting surely is painful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He lost me at "the major labels are hurting.
" Cry me a river, those poor suits haven't missed a meal yet, though that MAFIAA-powered foot-shooting surely is painful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836060</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>gregmac</author>
	<datestamp>1264018860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.</p></div></blockquote><p>There was an Ongoing History Of New Music episode that discussed this to length, and it was quite interesting (unfortunately, they don't put their shows online due to licensing restrictions because they contain music that is owned by record companies....)</p><p>For starters, banks are not likely to give a loan to a band. Simply put, there is a low probability of success, and banks do not have the expertise to judge the likelihood of a band succeeding.  Secondly, if you fail* as a band, the record label will say "oh, well, that sucks. Well, have a nice life, thanks for wasting our money". A bank is not quite going to have the same attitude.</p><p>* Failing means not making money at a faster rate than you are required to pay your loan back. If you don't start making money for two years, it doesn't matter.. you still owe that money during the two years.</p><p>Record labels are basically analogous to angel investors for startups. The only difference is they are also the distributors, and effectively have a monopoly on distribution. It would be like if the only way to get out software was to put it on a CD, and the only ones who could make CDs were the angel investors/VCs. They're not going to make a CD if you funded your startup on your own, and they have no ownership in it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need an advance , you go to a real bank and get an advancement.There was an Ongoing History Of New Music episode that discussed this to length , and it was quite interesting ( unfortunately , they do n't put their shows online due to licensing restrictions because they contain music that is owned by record companies.... ) For starters , banks are not likely to give a loan to a band .
Simply put , there is a low probability of success , and banks do not have the expertise to judge the likelihood of a band succeeding .
Secondly , if you fail * as a band , the record label will say " oh , well , that sucks .
Well , have a nice life , thanks for wasting our money " .
A bank is not quite going to have the same attitude .
* Failing means not making money at a faster rate than you are required to pay your loan back .
If you do n't start making money for two years , it does n't matter.. you still owe that money during the two years.Record labels are basically analogous to angel investors for startups .
The only difference is they are also the distributors , and effectively have a monopoly on distribution .
It would be like if the only way to get out software was to put it on a CD , and the only ones who could make CDs were the angel investors/VCs .
They 're not going to make a CD if you funded your startup on your own , and they have no ownership in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.There was an Ongoing History Of New Music episode that discussed this to length, and it was quite interesting (unfortunately, they don't put their shows online due to licensing restrictions because they contain music that is owned by record companies....)For starters, banks are not likely to give a loan to a band.
Simply put, there is a low probability of success, and banks do not have the expertise to judge the likelihood of a band succeeding.
Secondly, if you fail* as a band, the record label will say "oh, well, that sucks.
Well, have a nice life, thanks for wasting our money".
A bank is not quite going to have the same attitude.
* Failing means not making money at a faster rate than you are required to pay your loan back.
If you don't start making money for two years, it doesn't matter.. you still owe that money during the two years.Record labels are basically analogous to angel investors for startups.
The only difference is they are also the distributors, and effectively have a monopoly on distribution.
It would be like if the only way to get out software was to put it on a CD, and the only ones who could make CDs were the angel investors/VCs.
They're not going to make a CD if you funded your startup on your own, and they have no ownership in it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834514</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1264012740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I see an embedded video, (and if it's particularly awesome,) I will frequently go through the hoops to find the url of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flv file and download it onto my own hard drive. <br> <br>
Why?<br> <br>
Because I'm a hoarding little pack-rat when it comes to digital media. My unsorted pics folder is 7 gigs of nonstop wtf moments. Seriously, I've entertained company by just putting that folder on slide show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I see an embedded video , ( and if it 's particularly awesome , ) I will frequently go through the hoops to find the url of the .flv file and download it onto my own hard drive .
Why ? Because I 'm a hoarding little pack-rat when it comes to digital media .
My unsorted pics folder is 7 gigs of nonstop wtf moments .
Seriously , I 've entertained company by just putting that folder on slide show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I see an embedded video, (and if it's particularly awesome,) I will frequently go through the hoops to find the url of the .flv file and download it onto my own hard drive.
Why? 
Because I'm a hoarding little pack-rat when it comes to digital media.
My unsorted pics folder is 7 gigs of nonstop wtf moments.
Seriously, I've entertained company by just putting that folder on slide show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830876</id>
	<title>COMMUNISM IS THE FUTURE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Capitalism sucks! COMMUNISM! COMMUNISM! COMMUNISM! For a Soviet America!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Capitalism sucks !
COMMUNISM ! COMMUNISM !
COMMUNISM ! For a Soviet America !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Capitalism sucks!
COMMUNISM! COMMUNISM!
COMMUNISM! For a Soviet America!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834846</id>
	<title>ads vs products</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1264014240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like it's going to be hard to address the market, because there are actually three different ones.</p><p>Some people buy full albums/CDs.  From the point of view of these listeners and the bands that they like, the radio singles and the videos are just an advertisement, and most of the songs are not ever released through these forms.  It doesn't make sense for the ad to be pay-per-view, any more than a Coca Cola ad on TV.  The point of the video, or a single on the radio, is: "Like this? Buy the CD/ticket and hear more."</p><p>A relatively new market is the a la cart single tracks, a market that I believe was initially popularized by Apple's iTunes Store.  (Personally, I can't really imagine being part of this one, but I think it's a genre thing.)  If a single song is a whole sellable product, then a video which contains the song is obviously a product too.  So of course you try to get paid.</p><p>And the third market is the live performance ticket sales and merch sales (e.g. T shirts).  Among fans in this market, <em>some</em> of them consider <em>all</em> the recordings to be ads, not just the videos or radio singles.  (If the songs aren't ever released as videos/singles, though, I'm not sure how those people ever draw that conclusion.  The thinking might be that pirates end up releasing the songs for free, whether the musicians ever intended that or not, therefore tickets/merch are simple all that's left.)</p><p>The first and third forms were largely compatible. You could sell tickets and sell albums and it all <em>made sense</em>.  The second form, though, has really fucked things up and blurred the distinction between which songs are ads and which ones are products.  A given song might be <em>both</em>; it depends on <em>who</em> is listening to it.  The ideal thing for the business would be to try to segment the market: sell the singles to the a la cart people, and give 'em for free to the people who buy albums, tickets, and merch.  But at the time you sell a song, you don't know which segment someone is in, so how do you vary the price?</p><p><em>If</em> it's a genre thing (e.g. rock and metal are about full albums, pop is about singles) then you could pick your approach by band.  Do people actually exist who would actually buy "Aces High" but <em>not</em> "The Duelists"?</p><p>If so, then a band like Iron Maiden would have no perfect solution.</p><p>If not, then Iron Maiden could just give away "Aces High" singles/videos and sell Powerslave albums and World Slavery Tour tickets (which is what they basically did) while $POPNAME takes the totally different approach of just selling singles/videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like it 's going to be hard to address the market , because there are actually three different ones.Some people buy full albums/CDs .
From the point of view of these listeners and the bands that they like , the radio singles and the videos are just an advertisement , and most of the songs are not ever released through these forms .
It does n't make sense for the ad to be pay-per-view , any more than a Coca Cola ad on TV .
The point of the video , or a single on the radio , is : " Like this ?
Buy the CD/ticket and hear more .
" A relatively new market is the a la cart single tracks , a market that I believe was initially popularized by Apple 's iTunes Store .
( Personally , I ca n't really imagine being part of this one , but I think it 's a genre thing .
) If a single song is a whole sellable product , then a video which contains the song is obviously a product too .
So of course you try to get paid.And the third market is the live performance ticket sales and merch sales ( e.g .
T shirts ) .
Among fans in this market , some of them consider all the recordings to be ads , not just the videos or radio singles .
( If the songs are n't ever released as videos/singles , though , I 'm not sure how those people ever draw that conclusion .
The thinking might be that pirates end up releasing the songs for free , whether the musicians ever intended that or not , therefore tickets/merch are simple all that 's left .
) The first and third forms were largely compatible .
You could sell tickets and sell albums and it all made sense .
The second form , though , has really fucked things up and blurred the distinction between which songs are ads and which ones are products .
A given song might be both ; it depends on who is listening to it .
The ideal thing for the business would be to try to segment the market : sell the singles to the a la cart people , and give 'em for free to the people who buy albums , tickets , and merch .
But at the time you sell a song , you do n't know which segment someone is in , so how do you vary the price ? If it 's a genre thing ( e.g .
rock and metal are about full albums , pop is about singles ) then you could pick your approach by band .
Do people actually exist who would actually buy " Aces High " but not " The Duelists " ? If so , then a band like Iron Maiden would have no perfect solution.If not , then Iron Maiden could just give away " Aces High " singles/videos and sell Powerslave albums and World Slavery Tour tickets ( which is what they basically did ) while $ POPNAME takes the totally different approach of just selling singles/videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like it's going to be hard to address the market, because there are actually three different ones.Some people buy full albums/CDs.
From the point of view of these listeners and the bands that they like, the radio singles and the videos are just an advertisement, and most of the songs are not ever released through these forms.
It doesn't make sense for the ad to be pay-per-view, any more than a Coca Cola ad on TV.
The point of the video, or a single on the radio, is: "Like this?
Buy the CD/ticket and hear more.
"A relatively new market is the a la cart single tracks, a market that I believe was initially popularized by Apple's iTunes Store.
(Personally, I can't really imagine being part of this one, but I think it's a genre thing.
)  If a single song is a whole sellable product, then a video which contains the song is obviously a product too.
So of course you try to get paid.And the third market is the live performance ticket sales and merch sales (e.g.
T shirts).
Among fans in this market, some of them consider all the recordings to be ads, not just the videos or radio singles.
(If the songs aren't ever released as videos/singles, though, I'm not sure how those people ever draw that conclusion.
The thinking might be that pirates end up releasing the songs for free, whether the musicians ever intended that or not, therefore tickets/merch are simple all that's left.
)The first and third forms were largely compatible.
You could sell tickets and sell albums and it all made sense.
The second form, though, has really fucked things up and blurred the distinction between which songs are ads and which ones are products.
A given song might be both; it depends on who is listening to it.
The ideal thing for the business would be to try to segment the market: sell the singles to the a la cart people, and give 'em for free to the people who buy albums, tickets, and merch.
But at the time you sell a song, you don't know which segment someone is in, so how do you vary the price?If it's a genre thing (e.g.
rock and metal are about full albums, pop is about singles) then you could pick your approach by band.
Do people actually exist who would actually buy "Aces High" but not "The Duelists"?If so, then a band like Iron Maiden would have no perfect solution.If not, then Iron Maiden could just give away "Aces High" singles/videos and sell Powerslave albums and World Slavery Tour tickets (which is what they basically did) while $POPNAME takes the totally different approach of just selling singles/videos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835218</id>
	<title>Re:Musicians need labels to become famous</title>
	<author>AthanasiusKircher</author>
	<datestamp>1264015680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?</p></div><p>Sure, the "labels" for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven were various publishers.  And yes, there was a pecking order among publishers, and composers spent a lot of time (particularly in the 19th century) negotiating deals with them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today.</p></div><p>Really?  In Bach's first few years at Leipzig, he had to teach at a boys' school (Latin and music), direct a bunch of choirs and musicians, supervise a whole bunch of music students, and have time left over to write a 20-minute cantata every week or so (and then arrange for the copyists to create the parts necessary for performance), in addition to random organ music, etc.  All this to make money to support his family.  I'd hardly call this "much easier than musicians today."  Beethoven and Brahms had it somewhat easier, but they weren't depending on an organist job for a living, and their social class made a difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.</p></div><p>What the heck are you talking about?  In the era <i>before recordings</i>, the main way to get your music "out to a wide audience" was through publishers, and publication was quite a competitive business.  Although I don't think it's true of the three composers you mention, other major classical composers had exclusive publishing contracts with some major publishers.</p><p>

Bach's music, in fact, really didn't get "out to a wide audience" during his lifetime, except for a few keyboard works that he published, so I don't know how he's even relevant to your argument.</p><p>

And besides, as other have already pointed out, there was a system of patrons for the arts into the early 19th century.  Sort of like getting NEA grants nowadays, except often back then they were pensions for life.  These musicians only had it easier if they were independently wealthy, sold copies of their music, or had random rich guys giving them money periodically.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success .
To that end , can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven ? Sure , the " labels " for Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven were various publishers .
And yes , there was a pecking order among publishers , and composers spent a lot of time ( particularly in the 19th century ) negotiating deals with them.The thing is , those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today.Really ?
In Bach 's first few years at Leipzig , he had to teach at a boys ' school ( Latin and music ) , direct a bunch of choirs and musicians , supervise a whole bunch of music students , and have time left over to write a 20-minute cantata every week or so ( and then arrange for the copyists to create the parts necessary for performance ) , in addition to random organ music , etc .
All this to make money to support his family .
I 'd hardly call this " much easier than musicians today .
" Beethoven and Brahms had it somewhat easier , but they were n't depending on an organist job for a living , and their social class made a difference.Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience .
Today , that 's nearly impossible.What the heck are you talking about ?
In the era before recordings , the main way to get your music " out to a wide audience " was through publishers , and publication was quite a competitive business .
Although I do n't think it 's true of the three composers you mention , other major classical composers had exclusive publishing contracts with some major publishers .
Bach 's music , in fact , really did n't get " out to a wide audience " during his lifetime , except for a few keyboard works that he published , so I do n't know how he 's even relevant to your argument .
And besides , as other have already pointed out , there was a system of patrons for the arts into the early 19th century .
Sort of like getting NEA grants nowadays , except often back then they were pensions for life .
These musicians only had it easier if they were independently wealthy , sold copies of their music , or had random rich guys giving them money periodically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success.
To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?Sure, the "labels" for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven were various publishers.
And yes, there was a pecking order among publishers, and composers spent a lot of time (particularly in the 19th century) negotiating deals with them.The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today.Really?
In Bach's first few years at Leipzig, he had to teach at a boys' school (Latin and music), direct a bunch of choirs and musicians, supervise a whole bunch of music students, and have time left over to write a 20-minute cantata every week or so (and then arrange for the copyists to create the parts necessary for performance), in addition to random organ music, etc.
All this to make money to support his family.
I'd hardly call this "much easier than musicians today.
"  Beethoven and Brahms had it somewhat easier, but they weren't depending on an organist job for a living, and their social class made a difference.Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience.
Today, that's nearly impossible.What the heck are you talking about?
In the era before recordings, the main way to get your music "out to a wide audience" was through publishers, and publication was quite a competitive business.
Although I don't think it's true of the three composers you mention, other major classical composers had exclusive publishing contracts with some major publishers.
Bach's music, in fact, really didn't get "out to a wide audience" during his lifetime, except for a few keyboard works that he published, so I don't know how he's even relevant to your argument.
And besides, as other have already pointed out, there was a system of patrons for the arts into the early 19th century.
Sort of like getting NEA grants nowadays, except often back then they were pensions for life.
These musicians only had it easier if they were independently wealthy, sold copies of their music, or had random rich guys giving them money periodically.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832756</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Vanderhoth</author>
	<datestamp>1264006500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you think most small businesses fail? If only someone had thought of a business that lends money to help start small businesses, Oh wait that would be a bank.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think most small businesses fail ?
If only someone had thought of a business that lends money to help start small businesses , Oh wait that would be a bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think most small businesses fail?
If only someone had thought of a business that lends money to help start small businesses, Oh wait that would be a bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833388</id>
	<title>Re:Radiohead &amp; Digital Distribution</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264008540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radiohead were an established name. A huge established name.</p><p>They'd already done the whole thing of spending 6 months in a country house studio, spending record company money on the best producer, the best session musicians, equipment, acoustics, instruments, catering, etc. OK Computer was the epitome old school music industry album production.</p><p>4 albums later, they were still a huge name; of course they could get 1.2 million paid downloads for their new album. The same logic goes for Nine Inch Nails. Promotion is easy if you've already got millions of fans. Just blog what you've done and let the fans and the media spread the word.</p><p>Let's say I was able to make music as good as Radiohead's. If I just stuck it on the net and waited for the downloads, I'd be waiting forever. Radiohead wouldn't.</p><p>In Rainbows got all those downloads because of promotion a record company had done 10 years earlier. Without that, they'd still be playing Oxford pubs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radiohead were an established name .
A huge established name.They 'd already done the whole thing of spending 6 months in a country house studio , spending record company money on the best producer , the best session musicians , equipment , acoustics , instruments , catering , etc .
OK Computer was the epitome old school music industry album production.4 albums later , they were still a huge name ; of course they could get 1.2 million paid downloads for their new album .
The same logic goes for Nine Inch Nails .
Promotion is easy if you 've already got millions of fans .
Just blog what you 've done and let the fans and the media spread the word.Let 's say I was able to make music as good as Radiohead 's .
If I just stuck it on the net and waited for the downloads , I 'd be waiting forever .
Radiohead would n't.In Rainbows got all those downloads because of promotion a record company had done 10 years earlier .
Without that , they 'd still be playing Oxford pubs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radiohead were an established name.
A huge established name.They'd already done the whole thing of spending 6 months in a country house studio, spending record company money on the best producer, the best session musicians, equipment, acoustics, instruments, catering, etc.
OK Computer was the epitome old school music industry album production.4 albums later, they were still a huge name; of course they could get 1.2 million paid downloads for their new album.
The same logic goes for Nine Inch Nails.
Promotion is easy if you've already got millions of fans.
Just blog what you've done and let the fans and the media spread the word.Let's say I was able to make music as good as Radiohead's.
If I just stuck it on the net and waited for the downloads, I'd be waiting forever.
Radiohead wouldn't.In Rainbows got all those downloads because of promotion a record company had done 10 years earlier.
Without that, they'd still be playing Oxford pubs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831210</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>javilon</author>
	<datestamp>1263999720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign?</p></div><p>Well, now there is no reason any more. The reason used to be that labels owned the distribution channels, so you couldn't sound on radio or TV without them, even if you were a huge gig. Without them, you would not sound on TV or radio.</p><p>Now things are different, but labels still pretend to own the media and some bands fall for it, like OK go did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , as a musician or band , you wo n't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label .
That means you 're making enough money that they could make money off of you .
So at that point , why sign ? Well , now there is no reason any more .
The reason used to be that labels owned the distribution channels , so you could n't sound on radio or TV without them , even if you were a huge gig .
Without them , you would not sound on TV or radio.Now things are different , but labels still pretend to own the media and some bands fall for it , like OK go did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label.
That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you.
So at that point, why sign?Well, now there is no reason any more.
The reason used to be that labels owned the distribution channels, so you couldn't sound on radio or TV without them, even if you were a huge gig.
Without them, you would not sound on TV or radio.Now things are different, but labels still pretend to own the media and some bands fall for it, like OK go did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624</id>
	<title>Musicians need labels to become famous</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1264001700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree that having a major record-label  contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success. To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven? The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today. Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience. Today, that's nearly impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree that having a major record-label contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success .
To that end , can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach , Brahms , and Beethoven ?
The thing is , those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today .
Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience .
Today , that 's nearly impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree that having a major record-label  contract is the one and only way for a musician to achieve the highest levels of success.
To that end, can anybody remind me of who the labels were for Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven?
The thing is, those great musicians had it so much easier than musicians today.
Back then it was just so much easier to get your music out to a wide audience.
Today, that's nearly impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720</id>
	<title>I prefer non-embedded videos.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.</p><p>Why?</p><p>1. I get to see comments and related videos directly.<br>2. If I want to share the video, I have to extract the link anyway.</p><p>Don't do &lt;embed&gt;, do &lt;a target=\_blank<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...&gt;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact if I see an embedded video , I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.Why ? 1 .
I get to see comments and related videos directly.2 .
If I want to share the video , I have to extract the link anyway.Do n't do , do ... &gt; .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact if I see an embedded video, I will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.Why?1.
I get to see comments and related videos directly.2.
If I want to share the video, I have to extract the link anyway.Don't do , do  ...&gt;.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831128</id>
	<title>Sure, what the hell</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1263999240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the spirit of making it without a major label and needing a little exposure for my own work, here are four free tracks off the ambient album I'm working on: <a href="http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music" title="livingwithanerd.com">http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music</a> [livingwithanerd.com].  These are 100\% DRM and cost free.  Enjoy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the spirit of making it without a major label and needing a little exposure for my own work , here are four free tracks off the ambient album I 'm working on : http : //www.livingwithanerd.com/music [ livingwithanerd.com ] .
These are 100 \ % DRM and cost free .
Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the spirit of making it without a major label and needing a little exposure for my own work, here are four free tracks off the ambient album I'm working on: http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music [livingwithanerd.com].
These are 100\% DRM and cost free.
Enjoy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831350</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264000500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit<br></i><br>More importantly, personal CONTROL. Reel Big Fish made some kick-ass CDs before they signed. The one with the clown on the cover sucked. It was their first major lable CD. An artist who has someone telling him how to make his art is like a scientist with a guy with an MBA telling him how to do science. The good, effective ones aren't led by the nose by someone whose only goal is to make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profitMore importantly , personal CONTROL .
Reel Big Fish made some kick-ass CDs before they signed .
The one with the clown on the cover sucked .
It was their first major lable CD .
An artist who has someone telling him how to make his art is like a scientist with a guy with an MBA telling him how to do science .
The good , effective ones are n't led by the nose by someone whose only goal is to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profitMore importantly, personal CONTROL.
Reel Big Fish made some kick-ass CDs before they signed.
The one with the clown on the cover sucked.
It was their first major lable CD.
An artist who has someone telling him how to make his art is like a scientist with a guy with an MBA telling him how to do science.
The good, effective ones aren't led by the nose by someone whose only goal is to make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831150</id>
	<title>without rtfa</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1263999360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can say I know where this is going, and I wonder, why do we care here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. what metallica or pink or even backstreetboys think about the music industry, we are a computer industry, and technology, and science and math....come on people....really?<br>If i want music news I'll get from a better source then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>If i want to know what happens when I download music, that's ok for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., as most geeks like to know what they can and can't do with TPB being their close friend.<br>Could we have better stories please, this is not what i signed on for when i joined<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. community!</p><p>ps- to all the uber<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. geeks out there, yes I know i can filter out certain stories, but this one slipped in, and i though, isn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. about tech and science, when was it about music artists, unless of course talking about how pussycat dolls are babes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say I know where this is going , and I wonder , why do we care here on / .
what metallica or pink or even backstreetboys think about the music industry , we are a computer industry , and technology , and science and math....come on people....really ? If i want music news I 'll get from a better source then /.If i want to know what happens when I download music , that 's ok for /. , as most geeks like to know what they can and ca n't do with TPB being their close friend.Could we have better stories please , this is not what i signed on for when i joined / .
community ! ps- to all the uber / .
geeks out there , yes I know i can filter out certain stories , but this one slipped in , and i though , is n't / .
about tech and science , when was it about music artists , unless of course talking about how pussycat dolls are babes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say I know where this is going, and I wonder, why do we care here on /.
what metallica or pink or even backstreetboys think about the music industry, we are a computer industry, and technology, and science and math....come on people....really?If i want music news I'll get from a better source then /.If i want to know what happens when I download music, that's ok for /., as most geeks like to know what they can and can't do with TPB being their close friend.Could we have better stories please, this is not what i signed on for when i joined /.
community!ps- to all the uber /.
geeks out there, yes I know i can filter out certain stories, but this one slipped in, and i though, isn't /.
about tech and science, when was it about music artists, unless of course talking about how pussycat dolls are babes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830842</id>
	<title>R.I.P. Obamacare, you won't be missed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see those lefties cry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see those lefties cry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see those lefties cry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30837142</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263980280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But who's making money out of this "free" service?<br>I don't understand your point.<br></i><br>The authors themselves are making money off of it, which IS the point. Nobody is going to buy a book from an author they've never heard of, but they WILL buy books by authors they like. You can't know you like an author's work until you've read at least one of his books. Many authors have made lots of money from me, and had I not read their other books from the library I'd never have bought any of their work.</p><p>Taxes pay for libraries in the US too, but as a previous poster pointed out it works out to such a miniscule amount per person that they are, in fact, essentially free. Which isn't the point; the fact that "free" sells is the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who 's making money out of this " free " service ? I do n't understand your point.The authors themselves are making money off of it , which IS the point .
Nobody is going to buy a book from an author they 've never heard of , but they WILL buy books by authors they like .
You ca n't know you like an author 's work until you 've read at least one of his books .
Many authors have made lots of money from me , and had I not read their other books from the library I 'd never have bought any of their work.Taxes pay for libraries in the US too , but as a previous poster pointed out it works out to such a miniscule amount per person that they are , in fact , essentially free .
Which is n't the point ; the fact that " free " sells is the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who's making money out of this "free" service?I don't understand your point.The authors themselves are making money off of it, which IS the point.
Nobody is going to buy a book from an author they've never heard of, but they WILL buy books by authors they like.
You can't know you like an author's work until you've read at least one of his books.
Many authors have made lots of money from me, and had I not read their other books from the library I'd never have bought any of their work.Taxes pay for libraries in the US too, but as a previous poster pointed out it works out to such a miniscule amount per person that they are, in fact, essentially free.
Which isn't the point; the fact that "free" sells is the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832228</id>
	<title>You should read the article</title>
	<author>ctid</author>
	<datestamp>1264004460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially if you are going to post critically about something, it will help you if you read the article first. It specifically mentions that they do their own videos so as to keep the costs down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially if you are going to post critically about something , it will help you if you read the article first .
It specifically mentions that they do their own videos so as to keep the costs down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially if you are going to post critically about something, it will help you if you read the article first.
It specifically mentions that they do their own videos so as to keep the costs down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831986</id>
	<title>RIAA gradated response plan</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1264003320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concluded 7 years ago that there was really no hope for the current music industry, and that the only rational thing to do was to wait for it to crater. Nothing has changed, except the smell of desperation is ever more palpable. Yesterday, I heard Steve Marks of RIAA talked about their <a href="http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/riaa-graduated-response-plan-qa-with-cary-sherman.ars" title="arstechnica.com">graduated response</a> [arstechnica.com] plan. He denied it was a "3 strikes plan," which of course means that it is. It is no more likely to work than any of their previous plans.</p><p>Someone asked me afterwards why the industry continues to be so disastrously stupid. All I could come up with is that the people executing the stupidity are getting paid, and paid well, for continuing to hold out hope to the old men running the business that things can get put back the way that they were. As long as the people in charge have such delusions, and as long as they still have something to be in charge of, nothing will change,</p><p>Of course, bands like OK Go are basically serfs in this process. As they admit, they have no actual power whatsoever, and are just along for the ride.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concluded 7 years ago that there was really no hope for the current music industry , and that the only rational thing to do was to wait for it to crater .
Nothing has changed , except the smell of desperation is ever more palpable .
Yesterday , I heard Steve Marks of RIAA talked about their graduated response [ arstechnica.com ] plan .
He denied it was a " 3 strikes plan , " which of course means that it is .
It is no more likely to work than any of their previous plans.Someone asked me afterwards why the industry continues to be so disastrously stupid .
All I could come up with is that the people executing the stupidity are getting paid , and paid well , for continuing to hold out hope to the old men running the business that things can get put back the way that they were .
As long as the people in charge have such delusions , and as long as they still have something to be in charge of , nothing will change,Of course , bands like OK Go are basically serfs in this process .
As they admit , they have no actual power whatsoever , and are just along for the ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concluded 7 years ago that there was really no hope for the current music industry, and that the only rational thing to do was to wait for it to crater.
Nothing has changed, except the smell of desperation is ever more palpable.
Yesterday, I heard Steve Marks of RIAA talked about their graduated response [arstechnica.com] plan.
He denied it was a "3 strikes plan," which of course means that it is.
It is no more likely to work than any of their previous plans.Someone asked me afterwards why the industry continues to be so disastrously stupid.
All I could come up with is that the people executing the stupidity are getting paid, and paid well, for continuing to hold out hope to the old men running the business that things can get put back the way that they were.
As long as the people in charge have such delusions, and as long as they still have something to be in charge of, nothing will change,Of course, bands like OK Go are basically serfs in this process.
As they admit, they have no actual power whatsoever, and are just along for the ride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30838196</id>
	<title>The reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263984300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You start a rock band is to get laid.  No one is in it for art or money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You start a rock band is to get laid .
No one is in it for art or money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You start a rock band is to get laid.
No one is in it for art or money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831276</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1264000080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.</p></div><p>You say that, but you probably would never have heard of them if it weren't for marketing from a record label.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I 'd buy it.You say that , but you probably would never have heard of them if it were n't for marketing from a record label .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.You say that, but you probably would never have heard of them if it weren't for marketing from a record label.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831962</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while &gt;you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.</p><p>Right except for the fact that there are thousands of bands out there who play music for a living and a handful of acts that play stadiums and that its more of a lottery than anything else.<br>Growing your own fan base takes more time but your success will be more due to your talent and effort than whether some suit thinks they can 'sell you'.</p><p>Bands like Phish, Widespread panic, String Cheese and others of that genre have succeeded thanks to the slow but steady method of growing a community of fans rather than relying on labels.<br>Heck, these bands do something that irks labels to no end: they give their live music for free. Tape it, trade it just dont sell it and they dont care (its like open source). And this does affect cd sales since those same people that will listen to some average audience recording will buy official releases as well.</p><p>There are an amazing amount of bands of all genres that never get airplay and yet that travel the world playing their music.</p><p>I should know, our band has played over 800 shows this decade including 200 in europe. The situation is similar in every country (and europe is falling in the hands of the vultures of Clearchannel). Big labels represent only a small fraction of working bands out there and while that model is well known, it is not the one which benefits bands more, only a small select few.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Meanwhile , the band across the road gets a record deal , grows faster than organically , and is playing stadiums while &gt; you 're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.Right except for the fact that there are thousands of bands out there who play music for a living and a handful of acts that play stadiums and that its more of a lottery than anything else.Growing your own fan base takes more time but your success will be more due to your talent and effort than whether some suit thinks they can 'sell you'.Bands like Phish , Widespread panic , String Cheese and others of that genre have succeeded thanks to the slow but steady method of growing a community of fans rather than relying on labels.Heck , these bands do something that irks labels to no end : they give their live music for free .
Tape it , trade it just dont sell it and they dont care ( its like open source ) .
And this does affect cd sales since those same people that will listen to some average audience recording will buy official releases as well.There are an amazing amount of bands of all genres that never get airplay and yet that travel the world playing their music.I should know , our band has played over 800 shows this decade including 200 in europe .
The situation is similar in every country ( and europe is falling in the hands of the vultures of Clearchannel ) .
Big labels represent only a small fraction of working bands out there and while that model is well known , it is not the one which benefits bands more , only a small select few .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums while &gt;you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s.Right except for the fact that there are thousands of bands out there who play music for a living and a handful of acts that play stadiums and that its more of a lottery than anything else.Growing your own fan base takes more time but your success will be more due to your talent and effort than whether some suit thinks they can 'sell you'.Bands like Phish, Widespread panic, String Cheese and others of that genre have succeeded thanks to the slow but steady method of growing a community of fans rather than relying on labels.Heck, these bands do something that irks labels to no end: they give their live music for free.
Tape it, trade it just dont sell it and they dont care (its like open source).
And this does affect cd sales since those same people that will listen to some average audience recording will buy official releases as well.There are an amazing amount of bands of all genres that never get airplay and yet that travel the world playing their music.I should know, our band has played over 800 shows this decade including 200 in europe.
The situation is similar in every country (and europe is falling in the hands of the vultures of Clearchannel).
Big labels represent only a small fraction of working bands out there and while that model is well known, it is not the one which benefits bands more, only a small select few.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831790</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264002480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't call it a "physical product", but I think MP3s are a free lure to get people to shell out cash for live performances. People will pay several times the cost of a CD to watch a live show.</p><p>Almost everyone has to do live performances to earn a paycheck. Musicians are now coming into that fold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't call it a " physical product " , but I think MP3s are a free lure to get people to shell out cash for live performances .
People will pay several times the cost of a CD to watch a live show.Almost everyone has to do live performances to earn a paycheck .
Musicians are now coming into that fold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't call it a "physical product", but I think MP3s are a free lure to get people to shell out cash for live performances.
People will pay several times the cost of a CD to watch a live show.Almost everyone has to do live performances to earn a paycheck.
Musicians are now coming into that fold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835492</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>thomst</author>
	<datestamp>1264016580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label.  That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you.  So at that point, why sign?  If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.</p></div><p>
Wrong.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Your choices in summary:
1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit
2. don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profits</p><p>If you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2.  If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.</p></div><p>
Spoken from the perspective of someone who just "knows" that's the way things work - or rather, the way <i>he thinks </i> they should work.
</p><p>
The problem is that real world doesn't work that way. The way the real world works is this:
</p><p>
1. You perform, for almost no money (or, in the case of pay-to-play venues, for less money than it costs you to promote the gig and buy the tickets you couldn't find friends to purchase from the allotment the management of the place portioned out to you - and, if you don't sell all of them, you won't get a second opportunity to play that venue), as often as you can, while you work a dead-end, stop-loss job that, nonetheless, you have to schedule your rehearsals, performances, and promotional activities around.
</p><p>
2. You scrape together enough money to record your band at a low-budget studio, without enough time to complete your overdubs, because you can't afford to pay for the extra time. So the end-product is less than satisfactory - sometimes a whole lot less than satisfactory - but at least you have <i>something</i> to sell at your gigs, and send copies of to college radio stations and independent record labels.
</p><p>
3. You spend a lot of effort on your MyFace page, embedding your recordings (which eats into your market for CDs, which you try to sell at your performances, but more often can't, because the economy sucks, and, oh yeah, your audience can get the MP3s for free, anyway).
</p><p>
4. Eventually, you manage to attract an offer from an independent record company, which will give you the budget to make a decent album recording, and <i>just</i> enough promotion to go with it that you <i>may</i> just get a modest, college-radio hit out of it.
</p><p>
5. <i>Then</i> the major labels become interested enough to offer to buy your contract from the independent label, put you into what amounts to debt slavery to finance your next album and accompanying video(s), and (most importantly) pay Clear Channel the bribe money - excuse me, I meant "research fees" - that somehow, magically, gets your first major-label single actually played on commercial radio.
</p><p>
6. If you're really lucky, your song is a hit. At that point, you finally have a chance to beat the record company system - but only if you have already have a second single to promote (and not at all, if you're foolish enough to spend that income, rather than re-invest it by accepting a smaller advance for your second major-label album).
</p><p>
7. Rinse and repeat, until your contract is up, at which point, you finally have a chance to renegotiate the terms to something more in your favor. Just don't fail to continue to release hit records along the way, because it only takes one stiff - especially if it comes near the end of your contract, when you're getting creatively exhausted from the pressure and the touring - to put the record company in the driver's seat when it comes to negotiations. (This is what happened to Prince - and it's why he started insisting on being referred to as "the artist", because that's the way your record contract will refer to YOU - in the period when he appeared on SNL with the word "slave" written on his cheek in magic marker. And note that, at that time, he had already had massive hits with the likes of Purple Rain, Little Red Corvette, etc., none of which was enough to persuade his record company to let him renegotiate terms.)
</p><p>
This system definitely sucks the brown round - but it's still the way the vast majority of bands manage to claw their way into visibility with music consumers, because the alternative model I see tossed around here so frequently - record your music (using what, exactly, for money to purchase the recording equipment, software, acoustic environment, and expertise?) to give away as a tool to promote your live performances (using what, exactly, as a distribution medium? The Internet? Don't make me laugh.), SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK. It can, perhaps, get you a small following, but it CAN'T get you the kind of dedicated audience that will permit you to make music for a living.
</p><p>
And that's the really sad part. In order to reach your full potential you HAVE to be able to do it for a living. No part-time, self-funded, touring-on-a-shoestring band is going to be capable of recording the next Dark Side Of The Moon or Twelve Dreams Of Dr. Sardonicus or (inset title of your favorite masterpiece here), because they're not going to be able to <i>afford</i> to do so. They can't afford the studio time, the session help, the production talent, or, most importantly, the fund of experience in using the studio as an instrument that goes into creating such complex masterworks.
</p><p>
I speak here from experience. With enough of that experience, you <i>can</i> produce a <a href="http://www.starkrealities.com/work/If\%20I\%20Had\%20A\%20Million\%20Dollars.mp3" title="starkrealities.com" rel="nofollow">decent home recording</a> [starkrealities.com], but you still need to get people's attention. And <i>that</i> takes more promotion than just printing up flyers and posting them yourself can attract.
</p><p>
Promotion and distribution (i.e. - of physical media, such as CDs and vinyl albums) are just not things that indie bands are capable of doing on any meaningful scale. That's why bands who manage to make what seems like a big impact online (Panic At The Disco comes to mind here) leap at a chance to sign a major-label deal. Having a MyFace hit is all very well and good, but, if you want to be able to actually <i>make a living</i> playing music, you need a LOT more promotional and distribution muscle than that. Thus, the major labels.
</p><p>
Will the majors evolve into promotional, distribution, and (very importantly) financing agents, foregoing production and manufacturing altogether? Eventually, yes, almost undoubtedly. But we're still a long ways away from that day, and, in the meantime, I invite you just to try approaching a banker about getting a loan to finance recording, manufacturing, promoting, and distributing an album.
</p><p>
But be prepared to be laughed and pointed at.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , as a musician or band , you wo n't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label .
That means you 're making enough money that they could make money off of you .
So at that point , why sign ?
If you 're not that successful yet , no one will offer you a deal anyhow , so it 's not even a problem for you .
Wrong . Your choices in summary : 1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit 2. do n't sign , get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profitsIf you 're all that good , you 're gon na make way more money at # 2 .
If you 're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of # 1 , believe me , the label will find a way to claw that money back from you .
Spoken from the perspective of someone who just " knows " that 's the way things work - or rather , the way he thinks they should work .
The problem is that real world does n't work that way .
The way the real world works is this : 1 .
You perform , for almost no money ( or , in the case of pay-to-play venues , for less money than it costs you to promote the gig and buy the tickets you could n't find friends to purchase from the allotment the management of the place portioned out to you - and , if you do n't sell all of them , you wo n't get a second opportunity to play that venue ) , as often as you can , while you work a dead-end , stop-loss job that , nonetheless , you have to schedule your rehearsals , performances , and promotional activities around .
2. You scrape together enough money to record your band at a low-budget studio , without enough time to complete your overdubs , because you ca n't afford to pay for the extra time .
So the end-product is less than satisfactory - sometimes a whole lot less than satisfactory - but at least you have something to sell at your gigs , and send copies of to college radio stations and independent record labels .
3. You spend a lot of effort on your MyFace page , embedding your recordings ( which eats into your market for CDs , which you try to sell at your performances , but more often ca n't , because the economy sucks , and , oh yeah , your audience can get the MP3s for free , anyway ) .
4. Eventually , you manage to attract an offer from an independent record company , which will give you the budget to make a decent album recording , and just enough promotion to go with it that you may just get a modest , college-radio hit out of it .
5. Then the major labels become interested enough to offer to buy your contract from the independent label , put you into what amounts to debt slavery to finance your next album and accompanying video ( s ) , and ( most importantly ) pay Clear Channel the bribe money - excuse me , I meant " research fees " - that somehow , magically , gets your first major-label single actually played on commercial radio .
6. If you 're really lucky , your song is a hit .
At that point , you finally have a chance to beat the record company system - but only if you have already have a second single to promote ( and not at all , if you 're foolish enough to spend that income , rather than re-invest it by accepting a smaller advance for your second major-label album ) .
7. Rinse and repeat , until your contract is up , at which point , you finally have a chance to renegotiate the terms to something more in your favor .
Just do n't fail to continue to release hit records along the way , because it only takes one stiff - especially if it comes near the end of your contract , when you 're getting creatively exhausted from the pressure and the touring - to put the record company in the driver 's seat when it comes to negotiations .
( This is what happened to Prince - and it 's why he started insisting on being referred to as " the artist " , because that 's the way your record contract will refer to YOU - in the period when he appeared on SNL with the word " slave " written on his cheek in magic marker .
And note that , at that time , he had already had massive hits with the likes of Purple Rain , Little Red Corvette , etc. , none of which was enough to persuade his record company to let him renegotiate terms .
) This system definitely sucks the brown round - but it 's still the way the vast majority of bands manage to claw their way into visibility with music consumers , because the alternative model I see tossed around here so frequently - record your music ( using what , exactly , for money to purchase the recording equipment , software , acoustic environment , and expertise ?
) to give away as a tool to promote your live performances ( using what , exactly , as a distribution medium ?
The Internet ?
Do n't make me laugh .
) , SIMPLY DOES N'T WORK .
It can , perhaps , get you a small following , but it CA N'T get you the kind of dedicated audience that will permit you to make music for a living .
And that 's the really sad part .
In order to reach your full potential you HAVE to be able to do it for a living .
No part-time , self-funded , touring-on-a-shoestring band is going to be capable of recording the next Dark Side Of The Moon or Twelve Dreams Of Dr. Sardonicus or ( inset title of your favorite masterpiece here ) , because they 're not going to be able to afford to do so .
They ca n't afford the studio time , the session help , the production talent , or , most importantly , the fund of experience in using the studio as an instrument that goes into creating such complex masterworks .
I speak here from experience .
With enough of that experience , you can produce a decent home recording [ starkrealities.com ] , but you still need to get people 's attention .
And that takes more promotion than just printing up flyers and posting them yourself can attract .
Promotion and distribution ( i.e .
- of physical media , such as CDs and vinyl albums ) are just not things that indie bands are capable of doing on any meaningful scale .
That 's why bands who manage to make what seems like a big impact online ( Panic At The Disco comes to mind here ) leap at a chance to sign a major-label deal .
Having a MyFace hit is all very well and good , but , if you want to be able to actually make a living playing music , you need a LOT more promotional and distribution muscle than that .
Thus , the major labels .
Will the majors evolve into promotional , distribution , and ( very importantly ) financing agents , foregoing production and manufacturing altogether ?
Eventually , yes , almost undoubtedly .
But we 're still a long ways away from that day , and , in the meantime , I invite you just to try approaching a banker about getting a loan to finance recording , manufacturing , promoting , and distributing an album .
But be prepared to be laughed and pointed at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label.
That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you.
So at that point, why sign?
If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.
Wrong.
Your choices in summary:
1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit
2. don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profitsIf you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2.
If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.
Spoken from the perspective of someone who just "knows" that's the way things work - or rather, the way he thinks  they should work.
The problem is that real world doesn't work that way.
The way the real world works is this:

1.
You perform, for almost no money (or, in the case of pay-to-play venues, for less money than it costs you to promote the gig and buy the tickets you couldn't find friends to purchase from the allotment the management of the place portioned out to you - and, if you don't sell all of them, you won't get a second opportunity to play that venue), as often as you can, while you work a dead-end, stop-loss job that, nonetheless, you have to schedule your rehearsals, performances, and promotional activities around.
2. You scrape together enough money to record your band at a low-budget studio, without enough time to complete your overdubs, because you can't afford to pay for the extra time.
So the end-product is less than satisfactory - sometimes a whole lot less than satisfactory - but at least you have something to sell at your gigs, and send copies of to college radio stations and independent record labels.
3. You spend a lot of effort on your MyFace page, embedding your recordings (which eats into your market for CDs, which you try to sell at your performances, but more often can't, because the economy sucks, and, oh yeah, your audience can get the MP3s for free, anyway).
4. Eventually, you manage to attract an offer from an independent record company, which will give you the budget to make a decent album recording, and just enough promotion to go with it that you may just get a modest, college-radio hit out of it.
5. Then the major labels become interested enough to offer to buy your contract from the independent label, put you into what amounts to debt slavery to finance your next album and accompanying video(s), and (most importantly) pay Clear Channel the bribe money - excuse me, I meant "research fees" - that somehow, magically, gets your first major-label single actually played on commercial radio.
6. If you're really lucky, your song is a hit.
At that point, you finally have a chance to beat the record company system - but only if you have already have a second single to promote (and not at all, if you're foolish enough to spend that income, rather than re-invest it by accepting a smaller advance for your second major-label album).
7. Rinse and repeat, until your contract is up, at which point, you finally have a chance to renegotiate the terms to something more in your favor.
Just don't fail to continue to release hit records along the way, because it only takes one stiff - especially if it comes near the end of your contract, when you're getting creatively exhausted from the pressure and the touring - to put the record company in the driver's seat when it comes to negotiations.
(This is what happened to Prince - and it's why he started insisting on being referred to as "the artist", because that's the way your record contract will refer to YOU - in the period when he appeared on SNL with the word "slave" written on his cheek in magic marker.
And note that, at that time, he had already had massive hits with the likes of Purple Rain, Little Red Corvette, etc., none of which was enough to persuade his record company to let him renegotiate terms.
)

This system definitely sucks the brown round - but it's still the way the vast majority of bands manage to claw their way into visibility with music consumers, because the alternative model I see tossed around here so frequently - record your music (using what, exactly, for money to purchase the recording equipment, software, acoustic environment, and expertise?
) to give away as a tool to promote your live performances (using what, exactly, as a distribution medium?
The Internet?
Don't make me laugh.
), SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK.
It can, perhaps, get you a small following, but it CAN'T get you the kind of dedicated audience that will permit you to make music for a living.
And that's the really sad part.
In order to reach your full potential you HAVE to be able to do it for a living.
No part-time, self-funded, touring-on-a-shoestring band is going to be capable of recording the next Dark Side Of The Moon or Twelve Dreams Of Dr. Sardonicus or (inset title of your favorite masterpiece here), because they're not going to be able to afford to do so.
They can't afford the studio time, the session help, the production talent, or, most importantly, the fund of experience in using the studio as an instrument that goes into creating such complex masterworks.
I speak here from experience.
With enough of that experience, you can produce a decent home recording [starkrealities.com], but you still need to get people's attention.
And that takes more promotion than just printing up flyers and posting them yourself can attract.
Promotion and distribution (i.e.
- of physical media, such as CDs and vinyl albums) are just not things that indie bands are capable of doing on any meaningful scale.
That's why bands who manage to make what seems like a big impact online (Panic At The Disco comes to mind here) leap at a chance to sign a major-label deal.
Having a MyFace hit is all very well and good, but, if you want to be able to actually make a living playing music, you need a LOT more promotional and distribution muscle than that.
Thus, the major labels.
Will the majors evolve into promotional, distribution, and (very importantly) financing agents, foregoing production and manufacturing altogether?
Eventually, yes, almost undoubtedly.
But we're still a long ways away from that day, and, in the meantime, I invite you just to try approaching a banker about getting a loan to finance recording, manufacturing, promoting, and distributing an album.
But be prepared to be laughed and pointed at.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835990</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer non-embedded videos.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.</p><p>Why?</p><p>1. I get to see comments and related videos directly.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh huh. It just wouldn't be the full YouTube experience without the comments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.Why ? 1 .
I get to see comments and related videos directly.Uh huh .
It just would n't be the full YouTube experience without the comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> will frequently go through the gyrations to extract the link and watch it in a separate window in YouTube.Why?1.
I get to see comments and related videos directly.Uh huh.
It just wouldn't be the full YouTube experience without the comments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830884</id>
	<title>A non-story.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About Youtube videos not being embedable. Corporate fatcats strong arm Youtube and the band and internet at large suffers. Well, not me, that's for certain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About Youtube videos not being embedable .
Corporate fatcats strong arm Youtube and the band and internet at large suffers .
Well , not me , that 's for certain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About Youtube videos not being embedable.
Corporate fatcats strong arm Youtube and the band and internet at large suffers.
Well, not me, that's for certain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</id>
	<title>"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263998880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again. Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books <b>for free</b>, and read them, and go back for more. Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.</p><p>The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.</p><p>The established industry is going about digital data backwards. They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.</p><p>If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list. Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website. The forward to <i>Little Brother</i> explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The notion that if you give data away you ca n't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again .
Libraries have been around for centuries ; you can walk in , check out an armful of books for free , and read them , and go back for more .
Even a small city 's library has more books than one could read , and they 're constantly updated with more.The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales .
Instead , it sold more records .
The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry , but instead it got more people interested in movies .
They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry , look what happened .
The music industry thought cassettes would kill it , but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.The established industry is going about digital data backwards .
They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.If giving it away meant that you could n't sell it , Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list .
Besides libraries , you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website .
The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment ; I urge everyone to read that book , or at least the forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The notion that if you give data away you can't make money on it is a fallacy that has been disproven time and again.
Libraries have been around for centuries; you can walk in, check out an armful of books for free, and read them, and go back for more.
Even a small city's library has more books than one could read, and they're constantly updated with more.The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales.
Instead, it sold more records.
The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies.
They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened.
The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.The established industry is going about digital data backwards.
They should use MP3s like thay use radio -- a free lure to get people to shell out cash for physical items.If giving it away meant that you couldn't sell it, Cory Doctorow would not have been on the New York Times best seller list.
Besides libraries, you can get digital copies of his books for free on his website.
The forward to Little Brother explains this far better than this slashdot comment; I urge everyone to read that book, or at least the forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832124</id>
	<title>"manufactured"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label. That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you. So at that point, why sign? If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.</p></div><p>There are plenty of groups and people out there that are "manufactured" and are successful because of a record label's marketing. A middle-of-the-road sound that appeals to many people, but doesn't say much and isn't very risque.</p><p>On one hand you have Britney Spears who's basically all manufactured, on the other you have someone like <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=Coeur+de+Pirate" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Coeur de Pirate</a> [google.com] (aka B&#233;atrice Martin) who is doing things from the ground up without almost no marketing money.</p><p>Now some people like the generic sound of Spears, and if they enjoy it, good for them. Other people may like Martin or another individual who has a more unique sound, but since the latter's music doesn't get studied by focus groups, they may have more of niche audience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , as a musician or band , you wo n't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label .
That means you 're making enough money that they could make money off of you .
So at that point , why sign ?
If you 're not that successful yet , no one will offer you a deal anyhow , so it 's not even a problem for you.There are plenty of groups and people out there that are " manufactured " and are successful because of a record label 's marketing .
A middle-of-the-road sound that appeals to many people , but does n't say much and is n't very risque.On one hand you have Britney Spears who 's basically all manufactured , on the other you have someone like Coeur de Pirate [ google.com ] ( aka B   atrice Martin ) who is doing things from the ground up without almost no marketing money.Now some people like the generic sound of Spears , and if they enjoy it , good for them .
Other people may like Martin or another individual who has a more unique sound , but since the latter 's music does n't get studied by focus groups , they may have more of niche audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label.
That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you.
So at that point, why sign?
If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.There are plenty of groups and people out there that are "manufactured" and are successful because of a record label's marketing.
A middle-of-the-road sound that appeals to many people, but doesn't say much and isn't very risque.On one hand you have Britney Spears who's basically all manufactured, on the other you have someone like Coeur de Pirate [google.com] (aka Béatrice Martin) who is doing things from the ground up without almost no marketing money.Now some people like the generic sound of Spears, and if they enjoy it, good for them.
Other people may like Martin or another individual who has a more unique sound, but since the latter's music doesn't get studied by focus groups, they may have more of niche audience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831942</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video?</p></div><p>Yes... I've only every seen this video on YouTube and not because of any advertzing from EMI.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The label fronts the money for us to make recordings... The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record label</p></div><p>So... why all the whining? The band is under contract, it's paid for what it produces and it receives compensation during the creative process. After which it also receives additional compensation as a percentage of sales (out of which the label craftily recoups it's expenses, from the net procedes I'll wager).
</p><p>Anni DeFranco found a different method that allowed her to succeed without the onerous contracts under which bands like Ok Go operate. So there are other means, they're just not as easy. And people who grow their own businesses probably don't have time to write open letters whining about the way the Internutz work because they actually spend that time getting dirty and figuring it out.
</p><p>EMI, as far as I know is one of the more progessive labels, especially in its flexibility regarding use of the Internutz. I can see 2 sides of the embedding question, but since IAMAL the other 4 sides are opaque to me. Damian's comment that it's harder to share links to online videos is appeasement for the blogosphere only. Lack of embedding obviously doesn't stop fans from sharing URL's of copies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But without EMI , would you even have been exposed to that video ? Yes... I 've only every seen this video on YouTube and not because of any advertzing from EMI.The label fronts the money for us to make recordings... The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record labelSo... why all the whining ?
The band is under contract , it 's paid for what it produces and it receives compensation during the creative process .
After which it also receives additional compensation as a percentage of sales ( out of which the label craftily recoups it 's expenses , from the net procedes I 'll wager ) .
Anni DeFranco found a different method that allowed her to succeed without the onerous contracts under which bands like Ok Go operate .
So there are other means , they 're just not as easy .
And people who grow their own businesses probably do n't have time to write open letters whining about the way the Internutz work because they actually spend that time getting dirty and figuring it out .
EMI , as far as I know is one of the more progessive labels , especially in its flexibility regarding use of the Internutz .
I can see 2 sides of the embedding question , but since IAMAL the other 4 sides are opaque to me .
Damian 's comment that it 's harder to share links to online videos is appeasement for the blogosphere only .
Lack of embedding obviously does n't stop fans from sharing URL 's of copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video?Yes... I've only every seen this video on YouTube and not because of any advertzing from EMI.The label fronts the money for us to make recordings... The recordings and the videos we make are owned by a record labelSo... why all the whining?
The band is under contract, it's paid for what it produces and it receives compensation during the creative process.
After which it also receives additional compensation as a percentage of sales (out of which the label craftily recoups it's expenses, from the net procedes I'll wager).
Anni DeFranco found a different method that allowed her to succeed without the onerous contracts under which bands like Ok Go operate.
So there are other means, they're just not as easy.
And people who grow their own businesses probably don't have time to write open letters whining about the way the Internutz work because they actually spend that time getting dirty and figuring it out.
EMI, as far as I know is one of the more progessive labels, especially in its flexibility regarding use of the Internutz.
I can see 2 sides of the embedding question, but since IAMAL the other 4 sides are opaque to me.
Damian's comment that it's harder to share links to online videos is appeasement for the blogosphere only.
Lack of embedding obviously doesn't stop fans from sharing URL's of copies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831548</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft got it right with Zune</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264001340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get all the free music I need from the radio. Now excuse me while I go buy some bottled water...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get all the free music I need from the radio .
Now excuse me while I go buy some bottled water.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get all the free music I need from the radio.
Now excuse me while I go buy some bottled water...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30839026</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1263987300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having worked in the music industry for many years, I would say that LOTS of people "have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants." We called them "tour managers"!-A job I did for some time. Its not that hard really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having worked in the music industry for many years , I would say that LOTS of people " have the time and skills to be marketeers , travel and booking agents , and accountants .
" We called them " tour managers " ! -A job I did for some time .
Its not that hard really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having worked in the music industry for many years, I would say that LOTS of people "have the time and skills to be marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants.
" We called them "tour managers"!-A job I did for some time.
Its not that hard really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832290</id>
	<title>Radiohead &amp; Digital Distribution</title>
	<author>BigSes</author>
	<datestamp>1264004700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Radiohead made a effort to circumvent the industry, at least at first, with their release of <i>In Rainbows</i>.  It was released via digital download, and only available for ten days.  However, anyone who downloaded it could pay whatever they wanted, including nothing.  After 1.2 million downloads, it was estimated that the average downloader paid approximately $6, earning the band somewhere in the neighborhood of $6+ million dollars.  All of this with no astounding amount of expenditure for marketing, packaging, or distribution.  I'm sure more solid figures are available all over the internet.<p>Ok Go would be in a different situation, not having the fan base and clout for those kind of numbers.  However, this does leave something to be said for digital distribution as a means to avoid the record companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radiohead made a effort to circumvent the industry , at least at first , with their release of In Rainbows .
It was released via digital download , and only available for ten days .
However , anyone who downloaded it could pay whatever they wanted , including nothing .
After 1.2 million downloads , it was estimated that the average downloader paid approximately $ 6 , earning the band somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 6 + million dollars .
All of this with no astounding amount of expenditure for marketing , packaging , or distribution .
I 'm sure more solid figures are available all over the internet.Ok Go would be in a different situation , not having the fan base and clout for those kind of numbers .
However , this does leave something to be said for digital distribution as a means to avoid the record companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radiohead made a effort to circumvent the industry, at least at first, with their release of In Rainbows.
It was released via digital download, and only available for ten days.
However, anyone who downloaded it could pay whatever they wanted, including nothing.
After 1.2 million downloads, it was estimated that the average downloader paid approximately $6, earning the band somewhere in the neighborhood of $6+ million dollars.
All of this with no astounding amount of expenditure for marketing, packaging, or distribution.
I'm sure more solid figures are available all over the internet.Ok Go would be in a different situation, not having the fan base and clout for those kind of numbers.
However, this does leave something to be said for digital distribution as a means to avoid the record companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</id>
	<title>Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263997740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what&rsquo;s there to do? On the macro level, well, who the hell knows? There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them.</p></div><p>So where is the place to get into that sort of brainstorming?</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... the smug assholes who ran labels, who&rsquo;d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats?</p></div><p>Ah, that's where it will be decided.  I have low expectations for what comes out of that.  <br> <br>

I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.  What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.  If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.  I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.  Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI.  The obvious answer is that's a harder route for the big acts.  It takes more work, like you actually have a job forty hours a week.  And the attitude toward that option is:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We're a rock band, and it&rsquo;s a great gig. Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff.</p> </div><p>But in the end we all suffer from bands 'selling out' to labels.  I personally think no one suffers more than the bands.  Some fans can comply with the ridiculous terms but you lose a lot.  I would point to this small milestone in Ok Go's career as something of note to new musicians.  If you believe in yourself, don't rely on a label to grow.  If it doesn't work at least you weren't artificially installed singing someone else's music putting together an executive's vision.  <br> <br>

If only Ok Go could decide that their new video is embeddable, most would have watched it on Slashdot right now instead of the 1/2 of us that clicked on the link.  Unfortunately they already sold their soul to the devil so it doesn't matter what they think is good for them now.  The funny thing about this is that I'm vacationing in Grand Cayman right now and while I own every single album and EP and even vinyl records from Ok Go, I can't see this video on account of what they wrote in their post:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country.</p></div><p>Good luck guys.  I think you traded early growth that would have came naturally for some control over what you love.  It's sad but it's the way it is now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what    s there to do ?
On the macro level , well , who the hell knows ?
There are a lot of interesting ideas out there , but this is not the place to get into them.So where is the place to get into that sort of brainstorming ?
... the smug assholes who ran labels , who    d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats ? Ah , that 's where it will be decided .
I have low expectations for what comes out of that .
I also do n't understand why he thinks that artists 'need ' record labels .
What they 'need ' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss ' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain .
If you need an advance , you go to a real bank and get an advancement .
I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I 'd buy it .
Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success , not EMI .
The obvious answer is that 's a harder route for the big acts .
It takes more work , like you actually have a job forty hours a week .
And the attitude toward that option is : We 're a rock band , and it    s a great gig .
Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England ( we do ) , but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff .
But in the end we all suffer from bands 'selling out ' to labels .
I personally think no one suffers more than the bands .
Some fans can comply with the ridiculous terms but you lose a lot .
I would point to this small milestone in Ok Go 's career as something of note to new musicians .
If you believe in yourself , do n't rely on a label to grow .
If it does n't work at least you were n't artificially installed singing someone else 's music putting together an executive 's vision .
If only Ok Go could decide that their new video is embeddable , most would have watched it on Slashdot right now instead of the 1/2 of us that clicked on the link .
Unfortunately they already sold their soul to the devil so it does n't matter what they think is good for them now .
The funny thing about this is that I 'm vacationing in Grand Cayman right now and while I own every single album and EP and even vinyl records from Ok Go , I ca n't see this video on account of what they wrote in their post : This video contains content from EMI .
It is no longer available in your country.Good luck guys .
I think you traded early growth that would have came naturally for some control over what you love .
It 's sad but it 's the way it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what’s there to do?
On the macro level, well, who the hell knows?
There are a lot of interesting ideas out there, but this is not the place to get into them.So where is the place to get into that sort of brainstorming?
... the smug assholes who ran labels, who’d want a system where a handful of corporate overlords shove crap down our throats?Ah, that's where it will be decided.
I have low expectations for what comes out of that.
I also don't understand why he thinks that artists 'need' record labels.
What they 'need' is to grow organically to the point of extreme popularity and along the way you are the one deciding the terms of contracts and you are 'the boss' whose accountant and manager work for you and pay everyone up the chain.
If you need an advance, you go to a real bank and get an advancement.
I personally think that Ok Go are talented enough to sit down in a barn somewhere with basic recording equipment and I'd buy it.
Their music video with them on treadmills fly them to success, not EMI.
The obvious answer is that's a harder route for the big acts.
It takes more work, like you actually have a job forty hours a week.
And the attitude toward that option is:We're a rock band, and it’s a great gig.
Not just because we get to snort drugs off the Queen of England (we do), but because the only thing we are expected to do is make cool stuff.
But in the end we all suffer from bands 'selling out' to labels.
I personally think no one suffers more than the bands.
Some fans can comply with the ridiculous terms but you lose a lot.
I would point to this small milestone in Ok Go's career as something of note to new musicians.
If you believe in yourself, don't rely on a label to grow.
If it doesn't work at least you weren't artificially installed singing someone else's music putting together an executive's vision.
If only Ok Go could decide that their new video is embeddable, most would have watched it on Slashdot right now instead of the 1/2 of us that clicked on the link.
Unfortunately they already sold their soul to the devil so it doesn't matter what they think is good for them now.
The funny thing about this is that I'm vacationing in Grand Cayman right now and while I own every single album and EP and even vinyl records from Ok Go, I can't see this video on account of what they wrote in their post:This video contains content from EMI.
It is no longer available in your country.Good luck guys.
I think you traded early growth that would have came naturally for some control over what you love.
It's sad but it's the way it is now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831582</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1264001460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in a library you have to wait for a new book or the one you want. i want to borrow some CD's but they are in a branch that's an hour away and i don't want to spend the time going there. all the kids want what they want NOW</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in a library you have to wait for a new book or the one you want .
i want to borrow some CD 's but they are in a branch that 's an hour away and i do n't want to spend the time going there .
all the kids want what they want NOW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a library you have to wait for a new book or the one you want.
i want to borrow some CD's but they are in a branch that's an hour away and i don't want to spend the time going there.
all the kids want what they want NOW</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836400</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Aqualung812</author>
	<datestamp>1264020360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the label gave them $100k up front. The band may have earned $500k in a few years, but that was an IF and in the future.  However, the label can pay 10 bands $100k, lose the money on 5 of them completely, make back a little with 4 of them, and then earn millions on that 1.  However, 9 of those 10 bands won't get any more than their $100k back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the label gave them $ 100k up front .
The band may have earned $ 500k in a few years , but that was an IF and in the future .
However , the label can pay 10 bands $ 100k , lose the money on 5 of them completely , make back a little with 4 of them , and then earn millions on that 1 .
However , 9 of those 10 bands wo n't get any more than their $ 100k back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the label gave them $100k up front.
The band may have earned $500k in a few years, but that was an IF and in the future.
However, the label can pay 10 bands $100k, lose the money on 5 of them completely, make back a little with 4 of them, and then earn millions on that 1.
However, 9 of those 10 bands won't get any more than their $100k back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831636</id>
	<title>Re:My shits are meant to be smelled!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264001760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mods missed a gem here. This is totally on-topic. It's the exact same argument that musicians and the recording industry use, but replaces "music" with "shit". It really puts their argument into perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mods missed a gem here .
This is totally on-topic .
It 's the exact same argument that musicians and the recording industry use , but replaces " music " with " shit " .
It really puts their argument into perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mods missed a gem here.
This is totally on-topic.
It's the exact same argument that musicians and the recording industry use, but replaces "music" with "shit".
It really puts their argument into perspective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831298</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264000260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales. Instead, it sold more records. The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies. They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened. The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.</p></div><p>The buggy whip industry was sure that the internal combustion engine would kill sales. Instead... erm... it did?</p><p>Come on, this is Slashdot, get with the car analogies people.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales .
Instead , it sold more records .
The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry , but instead it got more people interested in movies .
They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry , look what happened .
The music industry thought cassettes would kill it , but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.The buggy whip industry was sure that the internal combustion engine would kill sales .
Instead... erm... it did ? Come on , this is Slashdot , get with the car analogies people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industry was sure that radio would kill record sales.
Instead, it sold more records.
The movie industry was sure that TV would kill the movie industry, but instead it got more people interested in movies.
They thought tthe VCR would kill the industry, look what happened.
The music industry thought cassettes would kill it, but like the VCR and movies it sold more product.The buggy whip industry was sure that the internal combustion engine would kill sales.
Instead... erm... it did?Come on, this is Slashdot, get with the car analogies people.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831302</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>acoustix</author>
	<datestamp>1264000260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand how a library operates.  The books don't just appear out of thin air and Librarians don't volunteer their time.  It all costs money.  In this case, taxpayer money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand how a library operates .
The books do n't just appear out of thin air and Librarians do n't volunteer their time .
It all costs money .
In this case , taxpayer money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand how a library operates.
The books don't just appear out of thin air and Librarians don't volunteer their time.
It all costs money.
In this case, taxpayer money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831260</id>
	<title>FoxxxyPregnantMILFS.com</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1264000020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't find server. wtf?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't find server .
wtf ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't find server.
wtf?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832310</id>
	<title>Re:My shits are meant to be smelled!</title>
	<author>bws111</author>
	<datestamp>1264004880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it is making the same arguments that people CLAIM the musicians and recording industry use.  Where did any musician or recording industry exec claim that merely listening to music is a copyright violation?  Where did they claim that creating your own original work is a copyright violation?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is making the same arguments that people CLAIM the musicians and recording industry use .
Where did any musician or recording industry exec claim that merely listening to music is a copyright violation ?
Where did they claim that creating your own original work is a copyright violation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is making the same arguments that people CLAIM the musicians and recording industry use.
Where did any musician or recording industry exec claim that merely listening to music is a copyright violation?
Where did they claim that creating your own original work is a copyright violation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832646</id>
	<title>No Paid Downloads?</title>
	<author>SpaceToast</author>
	<datestamp>1264006080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article bemoans the death of CD sales, and makes some decent points, but it's got a weird blind spot around paid digital downloads. Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the US now? Am I the last person who's happy to pay for music in a format, and with a level of convenience, that I like? I haven't bought a new CD in years, but between iTunes and Amazon MP3, I've got vastly more at my fingertips than any CD store ever sold.</p><p>Lets check some Created On dates, and see what I've spent money on in the past year...</p><ul>
<li>Benny Goodman</li><li>Bruderschaft</li><li>Massive Attack</li><li>Theatre of Tragedy</li><li>Underworld</li><li>Foo Fighters</li><li>Billy Joel</li><li>Freezepop</li><li>The Silent Hill IV soundtrack</li></ul><p>I'm not even a big music buff. What about paid digital downloads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article bemoans the death of CD sales , and makes some decent points , but it 's got a weird blind spot around paid digital downloads .
Is n't iTunes the largest music retailer in the US now ?
Am I the last person who 's happy to pay for music in a format , and with a level of convenience , that I like ?
I have n't bought a new CD in years , but between iTunes and Amazon MP3 , I 've got vastly more at my fingertips than any CD store ever sold.Lets check some Created On dates , and see what I 've spent money on in the past year.. . Benny GoodmanBruderschaftMassive AttackTheatre of TragedyUnderworldFoo FightersBilly JoelFreezepopThe Silent Hill IV soundtrackI 'm not even a big music buff .
What about paid digital downloads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article bemoans the death of CD sales, and makes some decent points, but it's got a weird blind spot around paid digital downloads.
Isn't iTunes the largest music retailer in the US now?
Am I the last person who's happy to pay for music in a format, and with a level of convenience, that I like?
I haven't bought a new CD in years, but between iTunes and Amazon MP3, I've got vastly more at my fingertips than any CD store ever sold.Lets check some Created On dates, and see what I've spent money on in the past year...
Benny GoodmanBruderschaftMassive AttackTheatre of TragedyUnderworldFoo FightersBilly JoelFreezepopThe Silent Hill IV soundtrackI'm not even a big music buff.
What about paid digital downloads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1263998280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label.  That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you.  So at that point, why sign?  If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.<br>Your choices in summary:<br>1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit<br>2. don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profits</p><p>If you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2.  If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , as a musician or band , you wo n't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label .
That means you 're making enough money that they could make money off of you .
So at that point , why sign ?
If you 're not that successful yet , no one will offer you a deal anyhow , so it 's not even a problem for you.Your choices in summary : 1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit2 .
do n't sign , get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profitsIf you 're all that good , you 're gon na make way more money at # 2 .
If you 're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of # 1 , believe me , the label will find a way to claw that money back from you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, as a musician or band, you won't get a major label offer until you are successful enough to attract the attention of a label.
That means you're making enough money that they could make money off of you.
So at that point, why sign?
If you're not that successful yet, no one will offer you a deal anyhow, so it's not even a problem for you.Your choices in summary:1. sign and get slightly better promotion for a huge reduction in your personal profit2.
don't sign, get the promotion your music warrants on its own and keep all your own profitsIf you're all that good, you're gonna make way more money at #2.
If you're terrible and somehow you get a big advance because of #1, believe me, the label will find a way to claw that money back from you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831040</id>
	<title>A Better Perspective from a Real Pro</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1263998760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article barely tells anything. You want a real close up perspective? read this : <a href="http://www.negativland.com/albini.html" title="negativland.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.negativland.com/albini.html</a> [negativland.com]<br>It's a tell all by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvanas last album and member of Big Black and Rapeman .<br>When you read this , you will see why I hate the industry soooooo much and am dedicated to its death.<br>So read this and get out your p2p and help kill the industry to make the world safe for music and musicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article barely tells anything .
You want a real close up perspective ?
read this : http : //www.negativland.com/albini.html [ negativland.com ] It 's a tell all by Steve Albini , producer of Nirvanas last album and member of Big Black and Rapeman .When you read this , you will see why I hate the industry soooooo much and am dedicated to its death.So read this and get out your p2p and help kill the industry to make the world safe for music and musicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article barely tells anything.
You want a real close up perspective?
read this : http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]It's a tell all by Steve Albini, producer of Nirvanas last album and member of Big Black and Rapeman .When you read this , you will see why I hate the industry soooooo much and am dedicated to its death.So read this and get out your p2p and help kill the industry to make the world safe for music and musicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30838622</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Space\_Pirate\_Arrr</author>
	<datestamp>1263985800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums <b>and in debt up to their eyeballs</b> while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s <b>having made a modest but steady income all the way</b>.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , the band across the road gets a record deal , grows faster than organically , and is playing stadiums and in debt up to their eyeballs while you 're still growing a fanbase into your 30s having made a modest but steady income all the way.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, the band across the road gets a record deal, grows faster than organically, and is playing stadiums and in debt up to their eyeballs while you're still growing a fanbase into your 30s having made a modest but steady income all the way.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836450</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video? There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output. It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.</p></div></blockquote><p>When I click the link with the video all i get is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:"Dieses Video enth&#228;lt Content von EMI. Es ist in deinem Land nicht mehr verf&#252;gbar. ". In English that is : "This Video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country". Because of EMI I am unable to watch that Video and become a fan. At least in my case the record companies' copyright prevents more commercial success.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But without EMI , would you even have been exposed to that video ?
There 's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output .
It 's record companies ' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.When I click the link with the video all i get is : " Dieses Video enth   lt Content von EMI .
Es ist in deinem Land nicht mehr verf   gbar .
" . In English that is : " This Video contains content from EMI .
It is no longer available in your country " .
Because of EMI I am unable to watch that Video and become a fan .
At least in my case the record companies ' copyright prevents more commercial success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But without EMI, would you even have been exposed to that video?
There's hundreds of thousands of bands out there that are good enough for you buy their output.
It's record companies' promotional efforts that typically make some of them more commercially successful than others.When I click the link with the video all i get is :"Dieses Video enthält Content von EMI.
Es ist in deinem Land nicht mehr verfügbar.
". In English that is : "This Video contains content from EMI.
It is no longer available in your country".
Because of EMI I am unable to watch that Video and become a fan.
At least in my case the record companies' copyright prevents more commercial success.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832122</id>
	<title>tape trading helps bands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264003860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mention libraries but I think tape trading is an even better example.</p><p>Since themid 70s, the Grateful Dead had allowed live taping of their shows by fans and trading amongst the fans without allowing for the sale of these tapes.<br>Thousands of bands after that (jam bands are usually more prevalent because if every show sounds exactlly like the other, there is no difference between two shows) have allowed fans to tape and trade and given access to stadiums and often even sound board patches.<br>Some bands make it commercially like Dave Matthews bands but others like Phish dont cross over yet have huge followings and sell out stadiums in minutes.<br>All those bands credit taping as the reason they were able to get their music across. Especially in the pre-web days (and I remember those first efw years DLing whole shows in..... Real Audio format!!</p><p>Again, this works for a Medeski, Martin, Wood and Karl Denson, old timers like Allman Brothers and kids like Umphreys Mcgee because their musical interpretations of songs are different from show to show. This wont work for a Rolling Stone or lipsyncing pop bimbos whose goal is to make each song sound exactly like on the album.</p><p>But for 30 years, bands that allow taping (there is a site that tells you all the bands that allow it) have noticed that if you give people free music, you will make new fans and those people will buy official releases. Even official live releases by bands sell rather well even though you can easily find those shows for free from a trader or even online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mention libraries but I think tape trading is an even better example.Since themid 70s , the Grateful Dead had allowed live taping of their shows by fans and trading amongst the fans without allowing for the sale of these tapes.Thousands of bands after that ( jam bands are usually more prevalent because if every show sounds exactlly like the other , there is no difference between two shows ) have allowed fans to tape and trade and given access to stadiums and often even sound board patches.Some bands make it commercially like Dave Matthews bands but others like Phish dont cross over yet have huge followings and sell out stadiums in minutes.All those bands credit taping as the reason they were able to get their music across .
Especially in the pre-web days ( and I remember those first efw years DLing whole shows in..... Real Audio format !
! Again , this works for a Medeski , Martin , Wood and Karl Denson , old timers like Allman Brothers and kids like Umphreys Mcgee because their musical interpretations of songs are different from show to show .
This wont work for a Rolling Stone or lipsyncing pop bimbos whose goal is to make each song sound exactly like on the album.But for 30 years , bands that allow taping ( there is a site that tells you all the bands that allow it ) have noticed that if you give people free music , you will make new fans and those people will buy official releases .
Even official live releases by bands sell rather well even though you can easily find those shows for free from a trader or even online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mention libraries but I think tape trading is an even better example.Since themid 70s, the Grateful Dead had allowed live taping of their shows by fans and trading amongst the fans without allowing for the sale of these tapes.Thousands of bands after that (jam bands are usually more prevalent because if every show sounds exactlly like the other, there is no difference between two shows) have allowed fans to tape and trade and given access to stadiums and often even sound board patches.Some bands make it commercially like Dave Matthews bands but others like Phish dont cross over yet have huge followings and sell out stadiums in minutes.All those bands credit taping as the reason they were able to get their music across.
Especially in the pre-web days (and I remember those first efw years DLing whole shows in..... Real Audio format!
!Again, this works for a Medeski, Martin, Wood and Karl Denson, old timers like Allman Brothers and kids like Umphreys Mcgee because their musical interpretations of songs are different from show to show.
This wont work for a Rolling Stone or lipsyncing pop bimbos whose goal is to make each song sound exactly like on the album.But for 30 years, bands that allow taping (there is a site that tells you all the bands that allow it) have noticed that if you give people free music, you will make new fans and those people will buy official releases.
Even official live releases by bands sell rather well even though you can easily find those shows for free from a trader or even online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831180</id>
	<title>Um, what was that argument again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263999540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After having watched the video linked to from OP, I have to ask: why did that video take a music label to finance it, film it, produce it, distribute it?
<br> <br>
It was a frigging <b>marching band</b>, for Grid's sake! They could have gone to a sizable local high school, recruited the cooperation of the band director, and done this entirely by themselves -- including distributing it on YouTube -- for only a few bucks. And they wouldn't have to worry about distribution restrictions, because they wouldn't be owned by a label! And the band would be happy to cooperate if given credit, because they would be <b>famous</b>, if only for a little while.
<br> <br>
The video is decent, but there is nothing there that requires any fancy label support or financing. I have seen more impressive shows by high school bands, and I mean that quite literally and sincerely.
<br> <br>
Sorry, but the actual product does not back their arguments. I call bullshit.
<br> <br>
Others are doing it successfully. If OK Go can't... well... I won't lose sleep over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After having watched the video linked to from OP , I have to ask : why did that video take a music label to finance it , film it , produce it , distribute it ?
It was a frigging marching band , for Grid 's sake !
They could have gone to a sizable local high school , recruited the cooperation of the band director , and done this entirely by themselves -- including distributing it on YouTube -- for only a few bucks .
And they would n't have to worry about distribution restrictions , because they would n't be owned by a label !
And the band would be happy to cooperate if given credit , because they would be famous , if only for a little while .
The video is decent , but there is nothing there that requires any fancy label support or financing .
I have seen more impressive shows by high school bands , and I mean that quite literally and sincerely .
Sorry , but the actual product does not back their arguments .
I call bullshit .
Others are doing it successfully .
If OK Go ca n't... well... I wo n't lose sleep over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After having watched the video linked to from OP, I have to ask: why did that video take a music label to finance it, film it, produce it, distribute it?
It was a frigging marching band, for Grid's sake!
They could have gone to a sizable local high school, recruited the cooperation of the band director, and done this entirely by themselves -- including distributing it on YouTube -- for only a few bucks.
And they wouldn't have to worry about distribution restrictions, because they wouldn't be owned by a label!
And the band would be happy to cooperate if given credit, because they would be famous, if only for a little while.
The video is decent, but there is nothing there that requires any fancy label support or financing.
I have seen more impressive shows by high school bands, and I mean that quite literally and sincerely.
Sorry, but the actual product does not back their arguments.
I call bullshit.
Others are doing it successfully.
If OK Go can't... well... I won't lose sleep over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835700</id>
	<title>Overyhyped summary</title>
	<author>evel aka matt</author>
	<datestamp>1264017300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is so little real info in the piece, and none of it is particularly insightful or otherwise-unknown. Dunno wtf is wrong with OP that  made him decide to sell that forum post like that.  COME ON!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is so little real info in the piece , and none of it is particularly insightful or otherwise-unknown .
Dunno wtf is wrong with OP that made him decide to sell that forum post like that .
COME ON !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is so little real info in the piece, and none of it is particularly insightful or otherwise-unknown.
Dunno wtf is wrong with OP that  made him decide to sell that forum post like that.
COME ON!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835396</id>
	<title>Re:A Better Perspective from a Real Pro</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By dedicated to its death, I hope you mean by supporting bands with a business model you approve of, and you're not just using this as an excuse to download music you haven't paid for. Because one of the arguments I keep reading here is that "no one gets hurt because it's not stealing".</p><p>If you don't support a band that does the things you agree with, then you're not part of the solution.</p><p>It's amazing that so many people her get so worked up over this, because while I agree the music industry is changing, I just can't imagine this is the most important issue we all face.</p><p>There's a ton of music out there. In fact, local music is dying, so why don't you go out to a club and support some real starving artists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By dedicated to its death , I hope you mean by supporting bands with a business model you approve of , and you 're not just using this as an excuse to download music you have n't paid for .
Because one of the arguments I keep reading here is that " no one gets hurt because it 's not stealing " .If you do n't support a band that does the things you agree with , then you 're not part of the solution.It 's amazing that so many people her get so worked up over this , because while I agree the music industry is changing , I just ca n't imagine this is the most important issue we all face.There 's a ton of music out there .
In fact , local music is dying , so why do n't you go out to a club and support some real starving artists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By dedicated to its death, I hope you mean by supporting bands with a business model you approve of, and you're not just using this as an excuse to download music you haven't paid for.
Because one of the arguments I keep reading here is that "no one gets hurt because it's not stealing".If you don't support a band that does the things you agree with, then you're not part of the solution.It's amazing that so many people her get so worked up over this, because while I agree the music industry is changing, I just can't imagine this is the most important issue we all face.There's a ton of music out there.
In fact, local music is dying, so why don't you go out to a club and support some real starving artists?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831184</id>
	<title>One post worth a million RIAA's</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263999540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the music industry had people who could write like that speaking for them, they would be a lot better off. I mean, the whole thing with the music business isn't even the idea of copyrighted content.  It's that, they are such jerks.  How well you interact with the plug is indescribably valuable in an age where everyone can know how you really act.  If they were making the soft sell, if they were leading out with "we gave Madonna millions of dollars and she's been a total bust since she got old", rather that suing college kids or octomoms, then, people would be more receptive to their arguments.   I mean, Google's "Don't be evil", is nice and all, but for a lot of businesses, its really, "don't be such a dick".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the music industry had people who could write like that speaking for them , they would be a lot better off .
I mean , the whole thing with the music business is n't even the idea of copyrighted content .
It 's that , they are such jerks .
How well you interact with the plug is indescribably valuable in an age where everyone can know how you really act .
If they were making the soft sell , if they were leading out with " we gave Madonna millions of dollars and she 's been a total bust since she got old " , rather that suing college kids or octomoms , then , people would be more receptive to their arguments .
I mean , Google 's " Do n't be evil " , is nice and all , but for a lot of businesses , its really , " do n't be such a dick " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the music industry had people who could write like that speaking for them, they would be a lot better off.
I mean, the whole thing with the music business isn't even the idea of copyrighted content.
It's that, they are such jerks.
How well you interact with the plug is indescribably valuable in an age where everyone can know how you really act.
If they were making the soft sell, if they were leading out with "we gave Madonna millions of dollars and she's been a total bust since she got old", rather that suing college kids or octomoms, then, people would be more receptive to their arguments.
I mean, Google's "Don't be evil", is nice and all, but for a lot of businesses, its really, "don't be such a dick".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835648</id>
	<title>Re:Should Have Grown Organically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264017120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants.</p> </div><p>Good music doesn't need marketeers, that leads to crap like spears and cirus.</p><p>Travel and booking? Is that really a skill that an adult should have a problem with? Even if you're also talking about actually booking concerts,  - if you're successful, they will come.</p><p>Accountants - I'll give you this one, but I'll also claim that people are capable of hiring accountants without needing some economy of scale claimed by the recording industry. Hiring a private accountant is going to get you better results than relying on a corporate stooge that doesn't give a crap about your band.</p><p>Got anything else?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>marketeers , travel and booking agents , and accountants .
Good music does n't need marketeers , that leads to crap like spears and cirus.Travel and booking ?
Is that really a skill that an adult should have a problem with ?
Even if you 're also talking about actually booking concerts , - if you 're successful , they will come.Accountants - I 'll give you this one , but I 'll also claim that people are capable of hiring accountants without needing some economy of scale claimed by the recording industry .
Hiring a private accountant is going to get you better results than relying on a corporate stooge that does n't give a crap about your band.Got anything else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>marketeers, travel and booking agents, and accountants.
Good music doesn't need marketeers, that leads to crap like spears and cirus.Travel and booking?
Is that really a skill that an adult should have a problem with?
Even if you're also talking about actually booking concerts,  - if you're successful, they will come.Accountants - I'll give you this one, but I'll also claim that people are capable of hiring accountants without needing some economy of scale claimed by the recording industry.
Hiring a private accountant is going to get you better results than relying on a corporate stooge that doesn't give a crap about your band.Got anything else?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832282</id>
	<title>In the words of the immortal Frank Zappa</title>
	<author>CodeHog</author>
	<datestamp>1264004700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We're only in it for the money."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're only in it for the money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're only in it for the money.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833184</id>
	<title>Re:"the money needs to come from somwhere"</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Concert tickets and T-Shirts</p></div><p>A common enough suggestion. But there are genres of music that are not amenable to concert performance. And there are genres of music whose fans aren't the types to clamour after T-shirts proclaiming their musical taste.</p><p>Are we saying that those kinds of music don't deserve to get made? (Or don't deserve to be self-financing, at least).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Concert tickets and T-ShirtsA common enough suggestion .
But there are genres of music that are not amenable to concert performance .
And there are genres of music whose fans are n't the types to clamour after T-shirts proclaiming their musical taste.Are we saying that those kinds of music do n't deserve to get made ?
( Or do n't deserve to be self-financing , at least ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concert tickets and T-ShirtsA common enough suggestion.
But there are genres of music that are not amenable to concert performance.
And there are genres of music whose fans aren't the types to clamour after T-shirts proclaiming their musical taste.Are we saying that those kinds of music don't deserve to get made?
(Or don't deserve to be self-financing, at least).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831872</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30843176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30844008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30837142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30839026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30838622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_0112204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30839026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835648
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832798
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30838622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30837142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30844008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30843176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30836106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30834514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30835218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30832760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30833456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_0112204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30830940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_0112204.30831548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
