<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1940201</id>
	<title>Virgin-Universal Deal Offers Unlimited Music, Goes After File Sharers</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245060180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes <i>"The UK's Virgin Media could start <a href="http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=205406&amp;p=irol-newsArticle&amp;ID=1298879&amp;highlight=">suspending persistent file sharers</a> on a temporary basis, using information provided to it by Universal Music.  The ISP announced on Monday that it would, before Christmas, launch an all-you-can-eat music download service for its users, based on a monthly subscription fee. The tracks will all be DRM-free.  'In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network,' a statement read.  'This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives. They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access.'  DTecNet has already been working with UK content companies for some time to do <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023\_3-10256481-93.html">much the same thing</a>, and is also working with RIAA in the United States."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes " The UK 's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis , using information provided to it by Universal Music .
The ISP announced on Monday that it would , before Christmas , launch an all-you-can-eat music download service for its users , based on a monthly subscription fee .
The tracks will all be DRM-free .
'In parallel , the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music 's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media 's network, ' a statement read .
'This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives .
They include , as a last resort for persistent offenders , a temporary suspension of internet access .
' DTecNet has already been working with UK content companies for some time to do much the same thing , and is also working with RIAA in the United States .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes "The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis, using information provided to it by Universal Music.
The ISP announced on Monday that it would, before Christmas, launch an all-you-can-eat music download service for its users, based on a monthly subscription fee.
The tracks will all be DRM-free.
'In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network,' a statement read.
'This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives.
They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access.
'  DTecNet has already been working with UK content companies for some time to do much the same thing, and is also working with RIAA in the United States.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344177</id>
	<title>Re:Has to be said....</title>
	<author>Scumbumbo</author>
	<datestamp>1245085500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The press release was worded very carefully to not explicitly pin down the offer.  I'll bet the subscription fee is for unlimited low-fi streaming, plus the ability to download an unlimited number of MP3 formatted files at the low low price of XX each.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The press release was worded very carefully to not explicitly pin down the offer .
I 'll bet the subscription fee is for unlimited low-fi streaming , plus the ability to download an unlimited number of MP3 formatted files at the low low price of XX each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The press release was worded very carefully to not explicitly pin down the offer.
I'll bet the subscription fee is for unlimited low-fi streaming, plus the ability to download an unlimited number of MP3 formatted files at the low low price of XX each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342051</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a plan ... Well there won't be many</title>
	<author>davidsyes</author>
	<datestamp>1245067860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Left in the US to shut down, since they sold off or are going to sell off most or all their US operations...</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7828483.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7828483.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MR0NO0&amp;show\_article=1" title="breitbart.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MR0NO0&amp;show\_article=1</a> [breitbart.com]</p><p>Also, frrom what i heard from a source, they made so much cash selling the Times Square location that they just happily threw in the other US locations just to be done with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Left in the US to shut down , since they sold off or are going to sell off most or all their US operations...http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7828483.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] http : //www.breitbart.com/article.php ? id = D96MR0NO0&amp;show \ _article = 1 [ breitbart.com ] Also , frrom what i heard from a source , they made so much cash selling the Times Square location that they just happily threw in the other US locations just to be done with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Left in the US to shut down, since they sold off or are going to sell off most or all their US operations...http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7828483.stm [bbc.co.uk]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96MR0NO0&amp;show\_article=1 [breitbart.com]Also, frrom what i heard from a source, they made so much cash selling the Times Square location that they just happily threw in the other US locations just to be done with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</id>
	<title>Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Enuratique</author>
	<datestamp>1245064140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that this is a risky venture... Though, at least they're trying new ideas and bringing everything to the table when they do...

For one thing it could backfire - driving customers away from their service.  Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?

And won't this further blur the line between content providers and internet providers?

Will this subscription service be optional? What if I don't want the price of my bill inflated an extra $10 a month for the privilege of downloading music guilt free?  What if I'm happy as a pig in shit with the current system (eg: morally bankrupt)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that this is a risky venture... Though , at least they 're trying new ideas and bringing everything to the table when they do.. . For one thing it could backfire - driving customers away from their service .
Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly ?
And wo n't this further blur the line between content providers and internet providers ?
Will this subscription service be optional ?
What if I do n't want the price of my bill inflated an extra $ 10 a month for the privilege of downloading music guilt free ?
What if I 'm happy as a pig in shit with the current system ( eg : morally bankrupt ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that this is a risky venture... Though, at least they're trying new ideas and bringing everything to the table when they do...

For one thing it could backfire - driving customers away from their service.
Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?
And won't this further blur the line between content providers and internet providers?
Will this subscription service be optional?
What if I don't want the price of my bill inflated an extra $10 a month for the privilege of downloading music guilt free?
What if I'm happy as a pig in shit with the current system (eg: morally bankrupt)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342223</id>
	<title>Alternative</title>
	<author>pr0nbot</author>
	<datestamp>1245069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An alternative for UK surfers:</p><p><a href="http://www.ukfsn.org/" title="ukfsn.org">http://www.ukfsn.org/</a> [ukfsn.org]</p><p>I have no affiliation with them, but...</p><p>"all profits from UKFSN go to fund UK Free Software projects"</p><p>"Our policy is that the electronic communications of our customers are private. We do not intercept, censor, scan or otherwise interfer with our customers' internet service."</p><p>"UKFSN does not and will not have any dealings with Phorm, the company behind the Webwise system being deployed by some other ISPs to intercept customer internet traffic. We are firmly of the opinion that the Phorm Webwise system is illegal under UK and EU laws. We also believe it to be fundamentally unethical to intercept customer traffic in this manner. It will never happen here."</p><p>"There is some suggestion that the UK government would like to mandate some form of interception and possibly censorship. We would encourage all interested persons to make it clear to MPs and the government generally that this is not acceptable."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An alternative for UK surfers : http : //www.ukfsn.org/ [ ukfsn.org ] I have no affiliation with them , but... " all profits from UKFSN go to fund UK Free Software projects " " Our policy is that the electronic communications of our customers are private .
We do not intercept , censor , scan or otherwise interfer with our customers ' internet service .
" " UKFSN does not and will not have any dealings with Phorm , the company behind the Webwise system being deployed by some other ISPs to intercept customer internet traffic .
We are firmly of the opinion that the Phorm Webwise system is illegal under UK and EU laws .
We also believe it to be fundamentally unethical to intercept customer traffic in this manner .
It will never happen here .
" " There is some suggestion that the UK government would like to mandate some form of interception and possibly censorship .
We would encourage all interested persons to make it clear to MPs and the government generally that this is not acceptable .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An alternative for UK surfers:http://www.ukfsn.org/ [ukfsn.org]I have no affiliation with them, but..."all profits from UKFSN go to fund UK Free Software projects""Our policy is that the electronic communications of our customers are private.
We do not intercept, censor, scan or otherwise interfer with our customers' internet service.
""UKFSN does not and will not have any dealings with Phorm, the company behind the Webwise system being deployed by some other ISPs to intercept customer internet traffic.
We are firmly of the opinion that the Phorm Webwise system is illegal under UK and EU laws.
We also believe it to be fundamentally unethical to intercept customer traffic in this manner.
It will never happen here.
""There is some suggestion that the UK government would like to mandate some form of interception and possibly censorship.
We would encourage all interested persons to make it clear to MPs and the government generally that this is not acceptable.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343057</id>
	<title>Re:No oversight. Who polices these people?</title>
	<author>spearway</author>
	<datestamp>1245075180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually this is going to be interesting Virgin-Media is a European company even if the English sometimes conveniently forget it, and the European Parliament is pushing to have Internet access recognized as an essential service like the phone.</p><p>I can see a law suit coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this is going to be interesting Virgin-Media is a European company even if the English sometimes conveniently forget it , and the European Parliament is pushing to have Internet access recognized as an essential service like the phone.I can see a law suit coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this is going to be interesting Virgin-Media is a European company even if the English sometimes conveniently forget it, and the European Parliament is pushing to have Internet access recognized as an essential service like the phone.I can see a law suit coming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343933</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional. In ANY country.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1245083040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>internet is no longer an amenity of modern technology. its a FEATURE of life. which affects many things ranging from, especially, freedom of speech and right to receive information to paying bills online. some european governments are even carrying over all kinds of services that citizens need from a government online. therefore internet is not a luxury anymore, its a BARE necessity of MODERN Life.</p><p>just reflected in the french high court decision, striking the dumbfucked 'three strikes and youre out' law as unconstitutional. that is the case in any country of the world.</p><p>just wait until virgin and universal gets sued by an angry subscriber who misses to pay his bills online, or cant access his bank site, or cant use new online government services.</p><p>no, actually dont wait. its unconstitutional, its YOUR country, YOUR constitution, YOUR rights. stand up for them. give them a piece of your mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>internet is no longer an amenity of modern technology .
its a FEATURE of life .
which affects many things ranging from , especially , freedom of speech and right to receive information to paying bills online .
some european governments are even carrying over all kinds of services that citizens need from a government online .
therefore internet is not a luxury anymore , its a BARE necessity of MODERN Life.just reflected in the french high court decision , striking the dumbfucked 'three strikes and youre out ' law as unconstitutional .
that is the case in any country of the world.just wait until virgin and universal gets sued by an angry subscriber who misses to pay his bills online , or cant access his bank site , or cant use new online government services.no , actually dont wait .
its unconstitutional , its YOUR country , YOUR constitution , YOUR rights .
stand up for them .
give them a piece of your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>internet is no longer an amenity of modern technology.
its a FEATURE of life.
which affects many things ranging from, especially, freedom of speech and right to receive information to paying bills online.
some european governments are even carrying over all kinds of services that citizens need from a government online.
therefore internet is not a luxury anymore, its a BARE necessity of MODERN Life.just reflected in the french high court decision, striking the dumbfucked 'three strikes and youre out' law as unconstitutional.
that is the case in any country of the world.just wait until virgin and universal gets sued by an angry subscriber who misses to pay his bills online, or cant access his bank site, or cant use new online government services.no, actually dont wait.
its unconstitutional, its YOUR country, YOUR constitution, YOUR rights.
stand up for them.
give them a piece of your mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342177</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1245068640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the point of ISP's suspecting copyright infringing users is pretty simple, and one that has yet to be tried out.</p><p>Real simple.  There is no safe harbor for what your customers are doing.  If they are doing illegal things that the ISP can detect and block - something that is probably not far off - they have an obligation to do so.  Failure to do so means they are an accomplice and liable for damages, at least contributory damages.</p><p>Today nobody has tried this approach because it is not clear that an ISP can detect copyright infringement in a clear and unambiguous way.  Should this change, ISPs will certainly be viewed differently in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point of ISP 's suspecting copyright infringing users is pretty simple , and one that has yet to be tried out.Real simple .
There is no safe harbor for what your customers are doing .
If they are doing illegal things that the ISP can detect and block - something that is probably not far off - they have an obligation to do so .
Failure to do so means they are an accomplice and liable for damages , at least contributory damages.Today nobody has tried this approach because it is not clear that an ISP can detect copyright infringement in a clear and unambiguous way .
Should this change , ISPs will certainly be viewed differently in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point of ISP's suspecting copyright infringing users is pretty simple, and one that has yet to be tried out.Real simple.
There is no safe harbor for what your customers are doing.
If they are doing illegal things that the ISP can detect and block - something that is probably not far off - they have an obligation to do so.
Failure to do so means they are an accomplice and liable for damages, at least contributory damages.Today nobody has tried this approach because it is not clear that an ISP can detect copyright infringement in a clear and unambiguous way.
Should this change, ISPs will certainly be viewed differently in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341999</id>
	<title>I'm a Virgin customer...</title>
	<author> CorpusKilo</author>
	<datestamp>1245067560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and am intruiged as to what "the process will not depend on network monitoring or interception of customer traffic by Virgin Media" actually means? Does this mean if Universal suspect me of filesharing, they can pass my IP to Virgin and have me temporarily disconnected?

On the plus side, the subscription service... as long as it is appropriately priced... is exactly what I have been looking for in terms of digital music. Provided it truely is DRM-free, and hopefully lossless quality<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and am intruiged as to what " the process will not depend on network monitoring or interception of customer traffic by Virgin Media " actually means ?
Does this mean if Universal suspect me of filesharing , they can pass my IP to Virgin and have me temporarily disconnected ?
On the plus side , the subscription service... as long as it is appropriately priced... is exactly what I have been looking for in terms of digital music .
Provided it truely is DRM-free , and hopefully lossless quality : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and am intruiged as to what "the process will not depend on network monitoring or interception of customer traffic by Virgin Media" actually means?
Does this mean if Universal suspect me of filesharing, they can pass my IP to Virgin and have me temporarily disconnected?
On the plus side, the subscription service... as long as it is appropriately priced... is exactly what I have been looking for in terms of digital music.
Provided it truely is DRM-free, and hopefully lossless quality :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341745</id>
	<title>Re:Has to be said....</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1245066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That presupposes that the minimum subscription period is a month or two. It may be &pound;40 a month for 12 months, &pound;20 a month for 24 months, &pound;10 a month for 5 years etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That presupposes that the minimum subscription period is a month or two .
It may be   40 a month for 12 months ,   20 a month for 24 months ,   10 a month for 5 years etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That presupposes that the minimum subscription period is a month or two.
It may be £40 a month for 12 months, £20 a month for 24 months, £10 a month for 5 years etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342225</id>
	<title>Meterial reduction?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and <b>drive a material reduction</b> in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Material reduction? I think they have failed to grasp some fundamentals of online file sharing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In parallel , the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music 's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media 's network Material reduction ?
I think they have failed to grasp some fundamentals of online file sharing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network
Material reduction?
I think they have failed to grasp some fundamentals of online file sharing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342007</id>
	<title>Why help Universal screw artists harder?</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1245067620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Universal had a deal where the artist gets half of the take, you'd have far less reason to suspect an all-you-can-hear deal because you'd know you're helping artists and encouraging them to publish more music.  As it is, there's nothing in this deal which even suggests a better arrangement for artists (the people corporate copyright holders love to trot out whenever illicit copying and distribution comes up).</p><p>The catalogs aren't the same, and neither is the history of pay-for-play, but compare the deal Universal is touting to the deal <a href="http://magnatune.com/" title="magnatune.com">Magnatune</a> [magnatune.com] has offered for years.  Both are all-you-can-hear, but Magnatune lets you set the price (above a specified minimum), you get more choice in what types of files you want (I like FLAC, it's unencumbered, lossless, and I can transcode to something lossy if I choose), the half-goes-to-the-artist deal still stands, and artists <em>license</em> Magnatune which allows artists to retain their copyrights.  Magnatune has no history of pay-for-play but all of the biggest music publishers do; I see no reason to reward that history with my sale.  I didn't have to worry about risk: anyone can listen to Magnatune's entire catalog online at no charge.  I don't have to worry about risking my Internet connection if <a href="http://magnatune.com/info/give" title="magnatune.com">I share Magnatune tracks</a> [magnatune.com] either; even if Magnatune had the power to suspend my Internet connection I've got license to share.  I put my money where my mouth is and I've bought an unlimited subscription from Magnatune.  I'll not do the same with Universal until their deal gets a lot better for me and the artists whose interests they claim to care about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Universal had a deal where the artist gets half of the take , you 'd have far less reason to suspect an all-you-can-hear deal because you 'd know you 're helping artists and encouraging them to publish more music .
As it is , there 's nothing in this deal which even suggests a better arrangement for artists ( the people corporate copyright holders love to trot out whenever illicit copying and distribution comes up ) .The catalogs are n't the same , and neither is the history of pay-for-play , but compare the deal Universal is touting to the deal Magnatune [ magnatune.com ] has offered for years .
Both are all-you-can-hear , but Magnatune lets you set the price ( above a specified minimum ) , you get more choice in what types of files you want ( I like FLAC , it 's unencumbered , lossless , and I can transcode to something lossy if I choose ) , the half-goes-to-the-artist deal still stands , and artists license Magnatune which allows artists to retain their copyrights .
Magnatune has no history of pay-for-play but all of the biggest music publishers do ; I see no reason to reward that history with my sale .
I did n't have to worry about risk : anyone can listen to Magnatune 's entire catalog online at no charge .
I do n't have to worry about risking my Internet connection if I share Magnatune tracks [ magnatune.com ] either ; even if Magnatune had the power to suspend my Internet connection I 've got license to share .
I put my money where my mouth is and I 've bought an unlimited subscription from Magnatune .
I 'll not do the same with Universal until their deal gets a lot better for me and the artists whose interests they claim to care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Universal had a deal where the artist gets half of the take, you'd have far less reason to suspect an all-you-can-hear deal because you'd know you're helping artists and encouraging them to publish more music.
As it is, there's nothing in this deal which even suggests a better arrangement for artists (the people corporate copyright holders love to trot out whenever illicit copying and distribution comes up).The catalogs aren't the same, and neither is the history of pay-for-play, but compare the deal Universal is touting to the deal Magnatune [magnatune.com] has offered for years.
Both are all-you-can-hear, but Magnatune lets you set the price (above a specified minimum), you get more choice in what types of files you want (I like FLAC, it's unencumbered, lossless, and I can transcode to something lossy if I choose), the half-goes-to-the-artist deal still stands, and artists license Magnatune which allows artists to retain their copyrights.
Magnatune has no history of pay-for-play but all of the biggest music publishers do; I see no reason to reward that history with my sale.
I didn't have to worry about risk: anyone can listen to Magnatune's entire catalog online at no charge.
I don't have to worry about risking my Internet connection if I share Magnatune tracks [magnatune.com] either; even if Magnatune had the power to suspend my Internet connection I've got license to share.
I put my money where my mouth is and I've bought an unlimited subscription from Magnatune.
I'll not do the same with Universal until their deal gets a lot better for me and the artists whose interests they claim to care about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341989</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245067500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because you have tin ears doesn't mean we all do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you have tin ears does n't mean we all do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you have tin ears doesn't mean we all do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653</id>
	<title>I'd pay for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vast library of mp3s, directly from the labels, and DRM free so that I can back them up, thus allowing my purchase to survive hardware failure?  (And yes, requiring backup is of course valid; I'm not asking for this in order to facilitate piracy)</p><p>Sign me up, Universal, quite seriously.  This is a better deal than what someone could hypothetically get on IRC for free, simply because it removes the electronic legwork they would have to do if they want particularly old/rare/obscure files.  Pirates generally only trade what's popular; being able to drink straight from the labels' tap means I can get whatever I want, whether it is popular or not, I don't have to waste time looking for it, I can potentially get it at top sound quality, AND I don't have to worry about being prosecuted or sued.</p><p>I don't know about the rest of you, but in my mind, piracy is motivated purely by pragmatism; free mp3s are considered a better deal than per-cost CDs.  However, give me a service where I can have just about everything since when Cocky was an egg, catalogued, and with a 384 khz bitrate, even better, and I'll be there with bells on, and will be quite happy to pay.</p><p>I'm not paying for the actual files themselves here, necessarily.  What I'm paying for is a) file quality, b) guaranteed availability and convenience, (due to the source) and c) legal protection.</p><p>A flat monthly fee would be preferable to me, but we could talk about just about anything up to around $50 AUD a month.  Get 100,000 people to sign up for that, and you've got a $5 million pilot program.  I could be wrong, but something tells me that upwards of $10-$20 million a month is something the RIAA could potentially be interested in.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Here's another idea for giving us both some security without the DRM bogeyman, as well.  Give me a digital receipt with a unique key every time I download some paid-for files from you, and I'll keep it in the same directory the files are in, and back it up with them as well.  That way, if there's ever a question asked, if you keep that key on file, we can both know said mp3s have come from you, and that I haven't pirated them.</p><p>It could work brilliantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vast library of mp3s , directly from the labels , and DRM free so that I can back them up , thus allowing my purchase to survive hardware failure ?
( And yes , requiring backup is of course valid ; I 'm not asking for this in order to facilitate piracy ) Sign me up , Universal , quite seriously .
This is a better deal than what someone could hypothetically get on IRC for free , simply because it removes the electronic legwork they would have to do if they want particularly old/rare/obscure files .
Pirates generally only trade what 's popular ; being able to drink straight from the labels ' tap means I can get whatever I want , whether it is popular or not , I do n't have to waste time looking for it , I can potentially get it at top sound quality , AND I do n't have to worry about being prosecuted or sued.I do n't know about the rest of you , but in my mind , piracy is motivated purely by pragmatism ; free mp3s are considered a better deal than per-cost CDs .
However , give me a service where I can have just about everything since when Cocky was an egg , catalogued , and with a 384 khz bitrate , even better , and I 'll be there with bells on , and will be quite happy to pay.I 'm not paying for the actual files themselves here , necessarily .
What I 'm paying for is a ) file quality , b ) guaranteed availability and convenience , ( due to the source ) and c ) legal protection.A flat monthly fee would be preferable to me , but we could talk about just about anything up to around $ 50 AUD a month .
Get 100,000 people to sign up for that , and you 've got a $ 5 million pilot program .
I could be wrong , but something tells me that upwards of $ 10- $ 20 million a month is something the RIAA could potentially be interested in .
; ) Here 's another idea for giving us both some security without the DRM bogeyman , as well .
Give me a digital receipt with a unique key every time I download some paid-for files from you , and I 'll keep it in the same directory the files are in , and back it up with them as well .
That way , if there 's ever a question asked , if you keep that key on file , we can both know said mp3s have come from you , and that I have n't pirated them.It could work brilliantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vast library of mp3s, directly from the labels, and DRM free so that I can back them up, thus allowing my purchase to survive hardware failure?
(And yes, requiring backup is of course valid; I'm not asking for this in order to facilitate piracy)Sign me up, Universal, quite seriously.
This is a better deal than what someone could hypothetically get on IRC for free, simply because it removes the electronic legwork they would have to do if they want particularly old/rare/obscure files.
Pirates generally only trade what's popular; being able to drink straight from the labels' tap means I can get whatever I want, whether it is popular or not, I don't have to waste time looking for it, I can potentially get it at top sound quality, AND I don't have to worry about being prosecuted or sued.I don't know about the rest of you, but in my mind, piracy is motivated purely by pragmatism; free mp3s are considered a better deal than per-cost CDs.
However, give me a service where I can have just about everything since when Cocky was an egg, catalogued, and with a 384 khz bitrate, even better, and I'll be there with bells on, and will be quite happy to pay.I'm not paying for the actual files themselves here, necessarily.
What I'm paying for is a) file quality, b) guaranteed availability and convenience, (due to the source) and c) legal protection.A flat monthly fee would be preferable to me, but we could talk about just about anything up to around $50 AUD a month.
Get 100,000 people to sign up for that, and you've got a $5 million pilot program.
I could be wrong, but something tells me that upwards of $10-$20 million a month is something the RIAA could potentially be interested in.
;)Here's another idea for giving us both some security without the DRM bogeyman, as well.
Give me a digital receipt with a unique key every time I download some paid-for files from you, and I'll keep it in the same directory the files are in, and back it up with them as well.
That way, if there's ever a question asked, if you keep that key on file, we can both know said mp3s have come from you, and that I haven't pirated them.It could work brilliantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344349</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245087660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>May the IFPI and all they represent reap what they sow for what they did to allofmp3.</p></div><p>The only thing they did to AllOfMP3 is to force them to change name and hoster - it's <a href="http://www.mp3sparks.com/" title="mp3sparks.com">MP3Sparks</a> [mp3sparks.com] now. Similarly, the old MP3Sugar has been reincarnated as <a href="http://www.mp3count.com/" title="mp3count.com">MP3Count</a> [mp3count.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>May the IFPI and all they represent reap what they sow for what they did to allofmp3.The only thing they did to AllOfMP3 is to force them to change name and hoster - it 's MP3Sparks [ mp3sparks.com ] now .
Similarly , the old MP3Sugar has been reincarnated as MP3Count [ mp3count.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May the IFPI and all they represent reap what they sow for what they did to allofmp3.The only thing they did to AllOfMP3 is to force them to change name and hoster - it's MP3Sparks [mp3sparks.com] now.
Similarly, the old MP3Sugar has been reincarnated as MP3Count [mp3count.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345463</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245145140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?</p></div><p>Virgin Media is the result of a group of mergers between all of the cable companies in the UK.  There are basically three ways of getting wired Internet access here:
</p><ul>
<li>Get an ADSL connection from a BT (incumbent monopoly telco) reseller.  Owing to regulation, you can't buy directly from the part of BT that operates the network, you have to buy from an arm which gets the lines at the same prices as their competitors.  This also requires you to have a BT land line</li>
<li>If you life near an exchange with local-loop unbundling, you can get ADSL from a third-party provider without paying BT anything, but they still typically need you to have a landline phone connection with somebody.</li>
<li>If you are one of around 60\% of the population living in areas covered by Virgin, you can get a connection from them.</li>
</ul><p>
For some strange reason, the regulator recently decided that Virgin doesn't need any regulation, while BT needs a lot.  This is odd, because it makes it increasingly difficult for ADSL providers to compete in the areas where Virgin's network extends (i.e. all of the profitable areas of the UK).  There are occasionally mutterings about making Virgin sell access to their network wholesale (as BT has to), but they keep being rejected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly ? Virgin Media is the result of a group of mergers between all of the cable companies in the UK .
There are basically three ways of getting wired Internet access here : Get an ADSL connection from a BT ( incumbent monopoly telco ) reseller .
Owing to regulation , you ca n't buy directly from the part of BT that operates the network , you have to buy from an arm which gets the lines at the same prices as their competitors .
This also requires you to have a BT land line If you life near an exchange with local-loop unbundling , you can get ADSL from a third-party provider without paying BT anything , but they still typically need you to have a landline phone connection with somebody .
If you are one of around 60 \ % of the population living in areas covered by Virgin , you can get a connection from them .
For some strange reason , the regulator recently decided that Virgin does n't need any regulation , while BT needs a lot .
This is odd , because it makes it increasingly difficult for ADSL providers to compete in the areas where Virgin 's network extends ( i.e .
all of the profitable areas of the UK ) .
There are occasionally mutterings about making Virgin sell access to their network wholesale ( as BT has to ) , but they keep being rejected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?Virgin Media is the result of a group of mergers between all of the cable companies in the UK.
There are basically three ways of getting wired Internet access here:

Get an ADSL connection from a BT (incumbent monopoly telco) reseller.
Owing to regulation, you can't buy directly from the part of BT that operates the network, you have to buy from an arm which gets the lines at the same prices as their competitors.
This also requires you to have a BT land line
If you life near an exchange with local-loop unbundling, you can get ADSL from a third-party provider without paying BT anything, but they still typically need you to have a landline phone connection with somebody.
If you are one of around 60\% of the population living in areas covered by Virgin, you can get a connection from them.
For some strange reason, the regulator recently decided that Virgin doesn't need any regulation, while BT needs a lot.
This is odd, because it makes it increasingly difficult for ADSL providers to compete in the areas where Virgin's network extends (i.e.
all of the profitable areas of the UK).
There are occasionally mutterings about making Virgin sell access to their network wholesale (as BT has to), but they keep being rejected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341447</id>
	<title>Too little, too late?</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1245064320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really a shame that it took over a decade for a music producer to provide what people have been asking for instead of trying to force their own solution down their customers throats.</p><p>Oh wait...they still want to suspend accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really a shame that it took over a decade for a music producer to provide what people have been asking for instead of trying to force their own solution down their customers throats.Oh wait...they still want to suspend accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really a shame that it took over a decade for a music producer to provide what people have been asking for instead of trying to force their own solution down their customers throats.Oh wait...they still want to suspend accounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345599</id>
	<title>Getting round the law</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1245147720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sad to see that Virgin are giving the copyright farmers exactly what they want - a way of harrassing alleged file-sharers without evidence, charge or trial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad to see that Virgin are giving the copyright farmers exactly what they want - a way of harrassing alleged file-sharers without evidence , charge or trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad to see that Virgin are giving the copyright farmers exactly what they want - a way of harrassing alleged file-sharers without evidence, charge or trial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344063</id>
	<title>Tagged: itsatrap</title>
	<author>sethstorm</author>
	<datestamp>1245084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Virgin-Universal Deal Offers Unlimited Music, Goes After File Sharers</i><br>Go figure what they offer in one hand but take in the other</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virgin-Universal Deal Offers Unlimited Music , Goes After File SharersGo figure what they offer in one hand but take in the other</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virgin-Universal Deal Offers Unlimited Music, Goes After File SharersGo figure what they offer in one hand but take in the other</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</id>
	<title>Sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation 's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346717</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245162060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Files downloaded from the site have an appropriate MP3 tag saying so. Before you can cancel your contract, you must download and run appropriate program which will delete all MP3s with the appropriate tag. Don't want to run it? Then you can't get out before the end of your contract.</i></p><p>How would they enforce this without DRM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Files downloaded from the site have an appropriate MP3 tag saying so .
Before you can cancel your contract , you must download and run appropriate program which will delete all MP3s with the appropriate tag .
Do n't want to run it ?
Then you ca n't get out before the end of your contract.How would they enforce this without DRM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Files downloaded from the site have an appropriate MP3 tag saying so.
Before you can cancel your contract, you must download and run appropriate program which will delete all MP3s with the appropriate tag.
Don't want to run it?
Then you can't get out before the end of your contract.How would they enforce this without DRM?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345179</id>
	<title>This is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is stupid to allow a large corporation to provide so many services - just wait until they start throttling Spotify and Napster to force people to use their service, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is stupid to allow a large corporation to provide so many services - just wait until they start throttling Spotify and Napster to force people to use their service , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is stupid to allow a large corporation to provide so many services - just wait until they start throttling Spotify and Napster to force people to use their service, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345575</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1245147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?</i></p><p>Of course not.  They're going to suspend it if <b>Universal alleges</b> that they did.</p><p>Prosecutor, judge, jury.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation 's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it ? Of course not .
They 're going to suspend it if Universal alleges that they did.Prosecutor , judge , jury .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?Of course not.
They're going to suspend it if Universal alleges that they did.Prosecutor, judge, jury.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345453</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1245145020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, that takes a nice and admirably corageous approach and makes it stupid and evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that takes a nice and admirably corageous approach and makes it stupid and evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that takes a nice and admirably corageous approach and makes it stupid and evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342343</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1245069780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From a consumer side of things, a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good, but it seems awfully fishy that Universal would offer it.</p></div><p>I'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want? Or, simply having one person in a group sign up and "share" offline?  My guess is they'll have some sort of ID tag to identify the music tied to the original subscriber; so if songs get shared beyond that then they have someone to sue.</p><p>Of course, that doesn't solve the churn problem - if people simply subscribe to get a catalog and then bolt, how do you generate a reliable long term revenue stream?  Do you produce enough new music each month to make a subscription a more viable option than say iTunes or buying CDs?  Do you slowly release the catalog to milk people for subscription fees?</p><p>Finally, how do you negotiate payments for songs sold by this method? Large volumes of downloads means each song gets a small slice of teh revenue - so a per d/l fixed cut could kill Universal.  How many people would simply d/l everything they can because it's "free?"</p><p>I  bet you see caps and some sort of watermarking at a minimum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a consumer side of things , a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good , but it seems awfully fishy that Universal would offer it.I 'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list ; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want ?
Or , simply having one person in a group sign up and " share " offline ?
My guess is they 'll have some sort of ID tag to identify the music tied to the original subscriber ; so if songs get shared beyond that then they have someone to sue.Of course , that does n't solve the churn problem - if people simply subscribe to get a catalog and then bolt , how do you generate a reliable long term revenue stream ?
Do you produce enough new music each month to make a subscription a more viable option than say iTunes or buying CDs ?
Do you slowly release the catalog to milk people for subscription fees ? Finally , how do you negotiate payments for songs sold by this method ?
Large volumes of downloads means each song gets a small slice of teh revenue - so a per d/l fixed cut could kill Universal .
How many people would simply d/l everything they can because it 's " free ?
" I bet you see caps and some sort of watermarking at a minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a consumer side of things, a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good, but it seems awfully fishy that Universal would offer it.I'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want?
Or, simply having one person in a group sign up and "share" offline?
My guess is they'll have some sort of ID tag to identify the music tied to the original subscriber; so if songs get shared beyond that then they have someone to sue.Of course, that doesn't solve the churn problem - if people simply subscribe to get a catalog and then bolt, how do you generate a reliable long term revenue stream?
Do you produce enough new music each month to make a subscription a more viable option than say iTunes or buying CDs?
Do you slowly release the catalog to milk people for subscription fees?Finally, how do you negotiate payments for songs sold by this method?
Large volumes of downloads means each song gets a small slice of teh revenue - so a per d/l fixed cut could kill Universal.
How many people would simply d/l everything they can because it's "free?
"I  bet you see caps and some sort of watermarking at a minimum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341613</id>
	<title>it will be limited choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245065280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will be an attempt to put the frightners on us that our teenage kids are downloading the internet while we sleep, so why not pay us a little bit of protection money and we will leave you alone..</p><p>This is Hannamontannization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will be an attempt to put the frightners on us that our teenage kids are downloading the internet while we sleep , so why not pay us a little bit of protection money and we will leave you alone..This is Hannamontannization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will be an attempt to put the frightners on us that our teenage kids are downloading the internet while we sleep, so why not pay us a little bit of protection money and we will leave you alone..This is Hannamontannization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341709</id>
	<title>I live in England...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245065820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And saw this on the news today. Thought it was absolutely ridiculous. A temporary suspension of the service I'm paying them to fucking provide? I don't think so. People need ISPs, not nannies. These fuckers will never see a penny from me. I'd rather pay over the odds with another ISP as long as it meant they'd keep their noses out of my business. I actually liked the music subscribtion idea, but I like my privacy a little more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And saw this on the news today .
Thought it was absolutely ridiculous .
A temporary suspension of the service I 'm paying them to fucking provide ?
I do n't think so .
People need ISPs , not nannies .
These fuckers will never see a penny from me .
I 'd rather pay over the odds with another ISP as long as it meant they 'd keep their noses out of my business .
I actually liked the music subscribtion idea , but I like my privacy a little more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And saw this on the news today.
Thought it was absolutely ridiculous.
A temporary suspension of the service I'm paying them to fucking provide?
I don't think so.
People need ISPs, not nannies.
These fuckers will never see a penny from me.
I'd rather pay over the odds with another ISP as long as it meant they'd keep their noses out of my business.
I actually liked the music subscribtion idea, but I like my privacy a little more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403</id>
	<title>Monthly fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I already pay a monthly fee for such a service. It's called DSL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already pay a monthly fee for such a service .
It 's called DSL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already pay a monthly fee for such a service.
It's called DSL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342497</id>
	<title>Sorry...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245070920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I've already got a better deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I 've already got a better deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I've already got a better deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341857</id>
	<title>A Wire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well here we are again, someone else tried this and what was the defence of the pirates? Now we know how much it's worth, stop with the big ass lawsuits.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Essentially Virgin internet provides a wire, for millions of people it is the single most important wire in their lives. Now this wire is being used as a potential punishing tool (parents the world over prevent children from using the net), and for what? Because the user is paying &#194;&pound;16-25 a month (Assuming Cell Phone as seperate) instead of &#194;&pound;24-38 (Estimated price of music service: &#194;&pound;7)?<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; I think the response of the British People should be clear, pay the &#194;&pound;7, once they prove in court you've done something wrong.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Brought to you buy the same people who don't think Ghandhi should have paid for salt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well here we are again , someone else tried this and what was the defence of the pirates ?
Now we know how much it 's worth , stop with the big ass lawsuits .
    Essentially Virgin internet provides a wire , for millions of people it is the single most important wire in their lives .
Now this wire is being used as a potential punishing tool ( parents the world over prevent children from using the net ) , and for what ?
Because the user is paying     16-25 a month ( Assuming Cell Phone as seperate ) instead of     24-38 ( Estimated price of music service :     7 ) ?
    I think the response of the British People should be clear , pay the     7 , once they prove in court you 've done something wrong .
    Brought to you buy the same people who do n't think Ghandhi should have paid for salt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well here we are again, someone else tried this and what was the defence of the pirates?
Now we know how much it's worth, stop with the big ass lawsuits.
  
  Essentially Virgin internet provides a wire, for millions of people it is the single most important wire in their lives.
Now this wire is being used as a potential punishing tool (parents the world over prevent children from using the net), and for what?
Because the user is paying Â£16-25 a month (Assuming Cell Phone as seperate) instead of Â£24-38 (Estimated price of music service: Â£7)?
  
  I think the response of the British People should be clear, pay the Â£7, once they prove in court you've done something wrong.
  
  Brought to you buy the same people who don't think Ghandhi should have paid for salt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342085</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245068040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better: 1 person sign up and and take orders for a couple hundred of their closest friends.</p><p>The truth is that the large corporate media middle man model is fatally broken.  Yes they will scream about "protecting the poor artist" and fight a few more sensational court battles but its just the dance of dead men walking.</p><p>Not many are going to pay for what they can easily get for free.  And free does not pay the rent.  How long before they try adding Ads halfway into a track?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better : 1 person sign up and and take orders for a couple hundred of their closest friends.The truth is that the large corporate media middle man model is fatally broken .
Yes they will scream about " protecting the poor artist " and fight a few more sensational court battles but its just the dance of dead men walking.Not many are going to pay for what they can easily get for free .
And free does not pay the rent .
How long before they try adding Ads halfway into a track ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better: 1 person sign up and and take orders for a couple hundred of their closest friends.The truth is that the large corporate media middle man model is fatally broken.
Yes they will scream about "protecting the poor artist" and fight a few more sensational court battles but its just the dance of dead men walking.Not many are going to pay for what they can easily get for free.
And free does not pay the rent.
How long before they try adding Ads halfway into a track?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342029</id>
	<title>Smells like hypocrites for dinner...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245067800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?</i></p><p>Will they cut their own access off if the corporation is caught breaking copyright law? And, could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation 's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it ? Will they cut their own access off if the corporation is caught breaking copyright law ?
And , could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?Will they cut their own access off if the corporation is caught breaking copyright law?
And, could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342151</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1245068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?</p></div><p>Don't be silly. After all, it's "information", not "court order". It will only hurt the little guys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation 's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it ? Do n't be silly .
After all , it 's " information " , not " court order " .
It will only hurt the little guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they going to suspend Virgin Corporation's internet access if one of their employees downloads an MP3 using it?Don't be silly.
After all, it's "information", not "court order".
It will only hurt the little guys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341905</id>
	<title>Re:Monthly fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245067080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol true story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol true story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol true story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342617</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245071580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You'd always forget some band or other, then months later slap your head in frustration and go 'Oh... I knew I should have downloaded more of the back catalogue of Oingo Boingo!'</p></div><p>So if you get a big enough list together, you sign up for another month, download all that, and you're done.
</p><p>Listen, I'm not really saying this is a bad idea.  For a long time now, I've thought that the way to get people to pay for music (to have no use of piracy) was essentially to provide a subscription service where music was "free".  The idea here would be to erase the need to amass a "music collection" (on your local hard drive), because you could always just re-download what you want.  The service would then allocate royalties based on the number of unique downloads, or something like that.
</p><p>The problem is that it needs to be cheap, and there needs to be a steady influx of new music that people will want to listen to.  If there isn't a lot of great new music, then the service better be very cheap.  My sense is that record companies aren't going to accept less money, and personally I'm not too happy with the new music I hear.  So for me, I'd probably join up to something like this for the convenient downloads, long enough to get legal copies of what I want, and then I'd quit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd always forget some band or other , then months later slap your head in frustration and go 'Oh... I knew I should have downloaded more of the back catalogue of Oingo Boingo !
'So if you get a big enough list together , you sign up for another month , download all that , and you 're done .
Listen , I 'm not really saying this is a bad idea .
For a long time now , I 've thought that the way to get people to pay for music ( to have no use of piracy ) was essentially to provide a subscription service where music was " free " .
The idea here would be to erase the need to amass a " music collection " ( on your local hard drive ) , because you could always just re-download what you want .
The service would then allocate royalties based on the number of unique downloads , or something like that .
The problem is that it needs to be cheap , and there needs to be a steady influx of new music that people will want to listen to .
If there is n't a lot of great new music , then the service better be very cheap .
My sense is that record companies are n't going to accept less money , and personally I 'm not too happy with the new music I hear .
So for me , I 'd probably join up to something like this for the convenient downloads , long enough to get legal copies of what I want , and then I 'd quit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd always forget some band or other, then months later slap your head in frustration and go 'Oh... I knew I should have downloaded more of the back catalogue of Oingo Boingo!
'So if you get a big enough list together, you sign up for another month, download all that, and you're done.
Listen, I'm not really saying this is a bad idea.
For a long time now, I've thought that the way to get people to pay for music (to have no use of piracy) was essentially to provide a subscription service where music was "free".
The idea here would be to erase the need to amass a "music collection" (on your local hard drive), because you could always just re-download what you want.
The service would then allocate royalties based on the number of unique downloads, or something like that.
The problem is that it needs to be cheap, and there needs to be a steady influx of new music that people will want to listen to.
If there isn't a lot of great new music, then the service better be very cheap.
My sense is that record companies aren't going to accept less money, and personally I'm not too happy with the new music I hear.
So for me, I'd probably join up to something like this for the convenient downloads, long enough to get legal copies of what I want, and then I'd quit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341941</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1245067200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no it's not risky..  you are not looking at it right.</p><p>Everything for one monthly fee, and they will be going after file sharers and illegal file holders with vigor...</p><p>I.E.   if you dont subscribe and have music on your computer, you're a criminal.  The ONLY way to not get labeled a criminal is to subscribe to the service.</p><p>I might be paranoid, but Evil is as Evil does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no it 's not risky.. you are not looking at it right.Everything for one monthly fee , and they will be going after file sharers and illegal file holders with vigor...I.E .
if you dont subscribe and have music on your computer , you 're a criminal .
The ONLY way to not get labeled a criminal is to subscribe to the service.I might be paranoid , but Evil is as Evil does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no it's not risky..  you are not looking at it right.Everything for one monthly fee, and they will be going after file sharers and illegal file holders with vigor...I.E.
if you dont subscribe and have music on your computer, you're a criminal.
The ONLY way to not get labeled a criminal is to subscribe to the service.I might be paranoid, but Evil is as Evil does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345083</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1245183120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A little background - virgin media is virtually the only choice for cable provider in the UK, having bought up most of the competition, though their network only covers the cities and largest towns. They offer up to 20Mb, though I think they've started offering 50Mb in some areas now. They're competing with ADSL2+ in city centres, with services up to 24Mb (if you're close enough to the exchange)</p><p>Virgin already offer TV packages, phone etc being cable, and already have throttling in place. When you download a certain amount in peak hours, they throttle you for the next 5 hours (for the 10Mb users, it's down to 1Mb after downloading 800MB, for example). They've also worked with the major labels to issue warning letters when accused of file sharing, and are partnering with phorm to handover browsing data for targeted advertising, so they have form for keeping a close eye on what their customers get up to, alongside official media services.</p><p>So this new DRM-free all-you-can-eat music package, as long as it's a Universal artist (i.e. they don't get deleted when you leave) will be an optional add-on to their normal packages, with all users having extra policing of their use in order to keep Universal happy. Their pricing estimate so far is 'a couple of albums a month'; so &#194;&pound;20 or $35 a month on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A little background - virgin media is virtually the only choice for cable provider in the UK , having bought up most of the competition , though their network only covers the cities and largest towns .
They offer up to 20Mb , though I think they 've started offering 50Mb in some areas now .
They 're competing with ADSL2 + in city centres , with services up to 24Mb ( if you 're close enough to the exchange ) Virgin already offer TV packages , phone etc being cable , and already have throttling in place .
When you download a certain amount in peak hours , they throttle you for the next 5 hours ( for the 10Mb users , it 's down to 1Mb after downloading 800MB , for example ) .
They 've also worked with the major labels to issue warning letters when accused of file sharing , and are partnering with phorm to handover browsing data for targeted advertising , so they have form for keeping a close eye on what their customers get up to , alongside official media services.So this new DRM-free all-you-can-eat music package , as long as it 's a Universal artist ( i.e .
they do n't get deleted when you leave ) will be an optional add-on to their normal packages , with all users having extra policing of their use in order to keep Universal happy .
Their pricing estimate so far is 'a couple of albums a month ' ; so     20 or $ 35 a month on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A little background - virgin media is virtually the only choice for cable provider in the UK, having bought up most of the competition, though their network only covers the cities and largest towns.
They offer up to 20Mb, though I think they've started offering 50Mb in some areas now.
They're competing with ADSL2+ in city centres, with services up to 24Mb (if you're close enough to the exchange)Virgin already offer TV packages, phone etc being cable, and already have throttling in place.
When you download a certain amount in peak hours, they throttle you for the next 5 hours (for the 10Mb users, it's down to 1Mb after downloading 800MB, for example).
They've also worked with the major labels to issue warning letters when accused of file sharing, and are partnering with phorm to handover browsing data for targeted advertising, so they have form for keeping a close eye on what their customers get up to, alongside official media services.So this new DRM-free all-you-can-eat music package, as long as it's a Universal artist (i.e.
they don't get deleted when you leave) will be an optional add-on to their normal packages, with all users having extra policing of their use in order to keep Universal happy.
Their pricing estimate so far is 'a couple of albums a month'; so Â£20 or $35 a month on top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346291</id>
	<title>Re:I live in England...</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1245158520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the betting that while suspended you will</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; a) still be paying for the service</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; b) not be able to transfer to another provider</p><p>all this on the *allegations* of a third party you may never have had any dealings with</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the betting that while suspended you will     a ) still be paying for the service     b ) not be able to transfer to another providerall this on the * allegations * of a third party you may never have had any dealings with</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the betting that while suspended you will
    a) still be paying for the service
    b) not be able to transfer to another providerall this on the *allegations* of a third party you may never have had any dealings with</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347771</id>
	<title>Re:good luck.. hard to compete with $0</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245168240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/9/13/11498/3759" title="kuro5hin.org">sample the radio</a> [kuro5hin.org] and make your MP3s out of the tunes. I have a lot of cassettes I recorded off of KSHE, the St Louis station that has been playing seven full, uncut albums back to back every Sunday night for decades. I had Ted Nugent's <i>Stranglehold</i> a week before you could buy it in the stores. See <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/4/29/182214/907" title="kuro5hin.org">Birth of a label-sanctioned pirate radio station</a> [kuro5hin.org], an article I wrote five years ago.</p><p>Your CD of the sampled songs will sound as good as FM (not quite CD quality but better than MP3).</p><p>If you make MP3s out of albums or cassettes, unfortunately the encoder amplifys the flaws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can sample the radio [ kuro5hin.org ] and make your MP3s out of the tunes .
I have a lot of cassettes I recorded off of KSHE , the St Louis station that has been playing seven full , uncut albums back to back every Sunday night for decades .
I had Ted Nugent 's Stranglehold a week before you could buy it in the stores .
See Birth of a label-sanctioned pirate radio station [ kuro5hin.org ] , an article I wrote five years ago.Your CD of the sampled songs will sound as good as FM ( not quite CD quality but better than MP3 ) .If you make MP3s out of albums or cassettes , unfortunately the encoder amplifys the flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can sample the radio [kuro5hin.org] and make your MP3s out of the tunes.
I have a lot of cassettes I recorded off of KSHE, the St Louis station that has been playing seven full, uncut albums back to back every Sunday night for decades.
I had Ted Nugent's Stranglehold a week before you could buy it in the stores.
See Birth of a label-sanctioned pirate radio station [kuro5hin.org], an article I wrote five years ago.Your CD of the sampled songs will sound as good as FM (not quite CD quality but better than MP3).If you make MP3s out of albums or cassettes, unfortunately the encoder amplifys the flaws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341681</id>
	<title>might be reasonable</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1245065640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It sounds like they *are* trying, if the monthly fee is reasonable.  If you're going to compete against illegal downloads, you must be at a minimum (a) DRM free and (b) available for a reasonable price.  The third requirement is sufficient quality (where hulu still fails), but maybe it'll be ok.  This could actually succeed.
</p><p>
Of course, if it is successful, the American music industry will implement their own version, which will be more expensive than CDs, have draconian DRM and be accompanied by punishing enforcement with lots of false positives.  But hey, we were always on the forefront of innovation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like they * are * trying , if the monthly fee is reasonable .
If you 're going to compete against illegal downloads , you must be at a minimum ( a ) DRM free and ( b ) available for a reasonable price .
The third requirement is sufficient quality ( where hulu still fails ) , but maybe it 'll be ok. This could actually succeed .
Of course , if it is successful , the American music industry will implement their own version , which will be more expensive than CDs , have draconian DRM and be accompanied by punishing enforcement with lots of false positives .
But hey , we were always on the forefront of innovation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It sounds like they *are* trying, if the monthly fee is reasonable.
If you're going to compete against illegal downloads, you must be at a minimum (a) DRM free and (b) available for a reasonable price.
The third requirement is sufficient quality (where hulu still fails), but maybe it'll be ok.  This could actually succeed.
Of course, if it is successful, the American music industry will implement their own version, which will be more expensive than CDs, have draconian DRM and be accompanied by punishing enforcement with lots of false positives.
But hey, we were always on the forefront of innovation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342227</id>
	<title>Re:Monthly fee</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1245069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I already pay a monthly fee for such a service. It's called DSL.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, no, no.  Their service lets you download music.  DSL lets you download (or upload) anything that can be represented digitally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already pay a monthly fee for such a service .
It 's called DSL.No , no , no .
Their service lets you download music .
DSL lets you download ( or upload ) anything that can be represented digitally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already pay a monthly fee for such a service.
It's called DSL.No, no, no.
Their service lets you download music.
DSL lets you download (or upload) anything that can be represented digitally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346281</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1245158400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with signing up for one month and the cancelling? If I buy a CD it doesn't stop working if I don't pay for it again next month.</p><p>They can't have it both ways. Either I get to hammer my connection 24/7 for a month downloading every track available and keep them forever for free, or they use DRM and I'm not interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with signing up for one month and the cancelling ?
If I buy a CD it does n't stop working if I do n't pay for it again next month.They ca n't have it both ways .
Either I get to hammer my connection 24/7 for a month downloading every track available and keep them forever for free , or they use DRM and I 'm not interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with signing up for one month and the cancelling?
If I buy a CD it doesn't stop working if I don't pay for it again next month.They can't have it both ways.
Either I get to hammer my connection 24/7 for a month downloading every track available and keep them forever for free, or they use DRM and I'm not interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344435</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Jarik\_Tentsu</author>
	<datestamp>1245088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah agreed. To be fair, this service doesn't sound too bad.</p><p>But are they gonna provide just limited content? Or give it to you in 56kbps mp3s or some other horribly low quality?</p><p>Or have some 'watermark' in the middle of every song - "You are listening to Virgin's Free service, please go to www.whatever to get more songs for just $30 per month!" or something.</p><p>~Jarik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah agreed .
To be fair , this service does n't sound too bad.But are they gon na provide just limited content ?
Or give it to you in 56kbps mp3s or some other horribly low quality ? Or have some 'watermark ' in the middle of every song - " You are listening to Virgin 's Free service , please go to www.whatever to get more songs for just $ 30 per month !
" or something. ~ Jarik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah agreed.
To be fair, this service doesn't sound too bad.But are they gonna provide just limited content?
Or give it to you in 56kbps mp3s or some other horribly low quality?Or have some 'watermark' in the middle of every song - "You are listening to Virgin's Free service, please go to www.whatever to get more songs for just $30 per month!
" or something.~Jarik</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341739</id>
	<title>Wow, good scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, let's have people download music for free, then, we'll turn them over to universal and they'll call piracy and sue for lots of money, and they'll split it with virgin.</p><p>GENIUS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , let 's have people download music for free , then , we 'll turn them over to universal and they 'll call piracy and sue for lots of money , and they 'll split it with virgin.GENIUS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, let's have people download music for free, then, we'll turn them over to universal and they'll call piracy and sue for lots of money, and they'll split it with virgin.GENIUS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341833</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel? Or are they really going to make it cheap enough, and adding new (good) content frequently enough, to make the whole thing worth it? I have my doubts.</p></div></blockquote><p>Good question. I would guess that they would do a contract term with the service. I'd guess 12 or even 24 months, and the requisite early termination fee.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't most people sign up for 1 month , download everything they want , and then cancel ?
Or are they really going to make it cheap enough , and adding new ( good ) content frequently enough , to make the whole thing worth it ?
I have my doubts.Good question .
I would guess that they would do a contract term with the service .
I 'd guess 12 or even 24 months , and the requisite early termination fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?
Or are they really going to make it cheap enough, and adding new (good) content frequently enough, to make the whole thing worth it?
I have my doubts.Good question.
I would guess that they would do a contract term with the service.
I'd guess 12 or even 24 months, and the requisite early termination fee.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345367</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1245143760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been that way. US cable companies would get really narky at you if you downloaded tv shows on their services.</p><p>Generally speaking ISPs only care as much about piracy as they're forced to because they make money by selling you internet access(it's a little different in the US because the US doesn't have quotas so they get narky if you use too much bandwidth, but not much). However if your ISP produces or distributes the content you're pirating they're all of a sudden really concerned. Virgin distributes music, so they care about music piracy, no big shock.</p><p>The world is always like that, Open Source guys pirate close source code but spit the dummy if the opposite happens. Move guys pirate software, software guys pirate movies. I remember flying with a guy who wrote scripts for movies and he was all up in arms against Movie piracy while writing his script on a pirated copy of Office.</p><p>You can bet that the RIAA guy pirates software and the BSA guy pirates movies because that's just the way the world works.</p><p>The moral of the story is never choose an ISP who is also a content provider.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been that way .
US cable companies would get really narky at you if you downloaded tv shows on their services.Generally speaking ISPs only care as much about piracy as they 're forced to because they make money by selling you internet access ( it 's a little different in the US because the US does n't have quotas so they get narky if you use too much bandwidth , but not much ) .
However if your ISP produces or distributes the content you 're pirating they 're all of a sudden really concerned .
Virgin distributes music , so they care about music piracy , no big shock.The world is always like that , Open Source guys pirate close source code but spit the dummy if the opposite happens .
Move guys pirate software , software guys pirate movies .
I remember flying with a guy who wrote scripts for movies and he was all up in arms against Movie piracy while writing his script on a pirated copy of Office.You can bet that the RIAA guy pirates software and the BSA guy pirates movies because that 's just the way the world works.The moral of the story is never choose an ISP who is also a content provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been that way.
US cable companies would get really narky at you if you downloaded tv shows on their services.Generally speaking ISPs only care as much about piracy as they're forced to because they make money by selling you internet access(it's a little different in the US because the US doesn't have quotas so they get narky if you use too much bandwidth, but not much).
However if your ISP produces or distributes the content you're pirating they're all of a sudden really concerned.
Virgin distributes music, so they care about music piracy, no big shock.The world is always like that, Open Source guys pirate close source code but spit the dummy if the opposite happens.
Move guys pirate software, software guys pirate movies.
I remember flying with a guy who wrote scripts for movies and he was all up in arms against Movie piracy while writing his script on a pirated copy of Office.You can bet that the RIAA guy pirates software and the BSA guy pirates movies because that's just the way the world works.The moral of the story is never choose an ISP who is also a content provider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345671</id>
	<title>Re:I'd pay for that</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245148740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who says they'll digitize the old stuff?</p><p>until i see the ferris bueller mix of beat city on their network i will not be sated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who says they 'll digitize the old stuff ? until i see the ferris bueller mix of beat city on their network i will not be sated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who says they'll digitize the old stuff?until i see the ferris bueller mix of beat city on their network i will not be sated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342277</id>
	<title>Re:Not the law, their rule</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245069300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure blatantly sharing an ENTIRE work constitutes fair use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure blatantly sharing an ENTIRE work constitutes fair use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure blatantly sharing an ENTIRE work constitutes fair use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28367675</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>CommanderIsm</author>
	<datestamp>1245240960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>virgin media is the devil incarnate in this.
the services offered by this the (taking over the biggest debtor in british history) are mediocre and at best below their own specifications.

i suffer their service everyday and i know how crap it is.

they slow down torrents - yet if you go to a virgin media website it is the correct speed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>virgin media is the devil incarnate in this .
the services offered by this the ( taking over the biggest debtor in british history ) are mediocre and at best below their own specifications .
i suffer their service everyday and i know how crap it is .
they slow down torrents - yet if you go to a virgin media website it is the correct speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>virgin media is the devil incarnate in this.
the services offered by this the (taking over the biggest debtor in british history) are mediocre and at best below their own specifications.
i suffer their service everyday and i know how crap it is.
they slow down torrents - yet if you go to a virgin media website it is the correct speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342311</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1245069600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly</p><p>No.  Anyone can provide internet access.  A lot of - perhaps most - people are connected via BT landlines to their exchange, and it is from that exchange that other companies can provide access.  Or there's genuine "hole in the wall" fibre, utterly independant of BT.  (BT was previously the state owned phone company before privatisation, and it slowly lose its monopoly, but it had something of a lead over competitors).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopolyNo .
Anyone can provide internet access .
A lot of - perhaps most - people are connected via BT landlines to their exchange , and it is from that exchange that other companies can provide access .
Or there 's genuine " hole in the wall " fibre , utterly independant of BT .
( BT was previously the state owned phone company before privatisation , and it slowly lose its monopoly , but it had something of a lead over competitors ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopolyNo.
Anyone can provide internet access.
A lot of - perhaps most - people are connected via BT landlines to their exchange, and it is from that exchange that other companies can provide access.
Or there's genuine "hole in the wall" fibre, utterly independant of BT.
(BT was previously the state owned phone company before privatisation, and it slowly lose its monopoly, but it had something of a lead over competitors).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467</id>
	<title>Interesting but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What format for the download? 128Kbit lossy compression? I could not find any mention of that. For it to really work out, I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What format for the download ?
128Kbit lossy compression ?
I could not find any mention of that .
For it to really work out , I would want at least CD quality lossless compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What format for the download?
128Kbit lossy compression?
I could not find any mention of that.
For it to really work out, I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342111</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245068220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?</i>

<p>Debatable.

</p><p>It's easily said: download <i>everything</i> they want. Maybe quite a few people will do that: sign up, binge on free mp3s, save them, then quit. But it seems to me that the people who would do that are pirates already. They've already downloaded everything they want.

</p><p>Meanwhile, if you're Joe Average, <i>can</i> you enumerate all the tracks you want, such that you could grab the lot of them in one mass download? It's a hell of a job. You'd always forget some band or other, then months later slap your head in frustration and go 'Oh... I <i>knew</i> I should have downloaded more of the back catalogue of Oingo Boingo!'

</p><p>I don't view the service here as 'pay to download music'. It's not really a sale thing. Why would I buy what I can have for free? This service is pitched at the lost generation, at the people aged 30 and down who have completely lost touch with the idea that music is something you pay for and then keep. We now treat music differently. Music is free - and I don't want to hear about copyright: maybe music SHOULDN'T be free, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS free.

</p><p>What I'll pay for is the service of organising music. My music collection is a total shambles. It's inconsistently tagged. It's encoded at a variety of bitrates and in a variety of formats, such that no MP3 player made since the glory days of iRiver will play them all without a Rockbox hack. And it occupies disk space that could be used for anime or porn. Frankly it's a mess.

</p><p>So that's what might attract me to Virgin's offering. If it's as complete as The Pirate Bay or more so, and the music is consistently tagged and encoded at a high quality, then a monthly fee is eminently fair to have access to that resource. Why <i>would</i> I download and keep any of it? Why should I go to the bother of maintaining my own collection? It's right there on a service run by my own ISP at the other end of a 20 megabit connection. Music on demand. The colossal cloud jukebox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't most people sign up for 1 month , download everything they want , and then cancel ?
Debatable . It 's easily said : download everything they want .
Maybe quite a few people will do that : sign up , binge on free mp3s , save them , then quit .
But it seems to me that the people who would do that are pirates already .
They 've already downloaded everything they want .
Meanwhile , if you 're Joe Average , can you enumerate all the tracks you want , such that you could grab the lot of them in one mass download ?
It 's a hell of a job .
You 'd always forget some band or other , then months later slap your head in frustration and go 'Oh... I knew I should have downloaded more of the back catalogue of Oingo Boingo !
' I do n't view the service here as 'pay to download music' .
It 's not really a sale thing .
Why would I buy what I can have for free ?
This service is pitched at the lost generation , at the people aged 30 and down who have completely lost touch with the idea that music is something you pay for and then keep .
We now treat music differently .
Music is free - and I do n't want to hear about copyright : maybe music SHOULD N'T be free , but that does n't change the fact that it IS free .
What I 'll pay for is the service of organising music .
My music collection is a total shambles .
It 's inconsistently tagged .
It 's encoded at a variety of bitrates and in a variety of formats , such that no MP3 player made since the glory days of iRiver will play them all without a Rockbox hack .
And it occupies disk space that could be used for anime or porn .
Frankly it 's a mess .
So that 's what might attract me to Virgin 's offering .
If it 's as complete as The Pirate Bay or more so , and the music is consistently tagged and encoded at a high quality , then a monthly fee is eminently fair to have access to that resource .
Why would I download and keep any of it ?
Why should I go to the bother of maintaining my own collection ?
It 's right there on a service run by my own ISP at the other end of a 20 megabit connection .
Music on demand .
The colossal cloud jukebox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?
Debatable.

It's easily said: download everything they want.
Maybe quite a few people will do that: sign up, binge on free mp3s, save them, then quit.
But it seems to me that the people who would do that are pirates already.
They've already downloaded everything they want.
Meanwhile, if you're Joe Average, can you enumerate all the tracks you want, such that you could grab the lot of them in one mass download?
It's a hell of a job.
You'd always forget some band or other, then months later slap your head in frustration and go 'Oh... I knew I should have downloaded more of the back catalogue of Oingo Boingo!
'

I don't view the service here as 'pay to download music'.
It's not really a sale thing.
Why would I buy what I can have for free?
This service is pitched at the lost generation, at the people aged 30 and down who have completely lost touch with the idea that music is something you pay for and then keep.
We now treat music differently.
Music is free - and I don't want to hear about copyright: maybe music SHOULDN'T be free, but that doesn't change the fact that it IS free.
What I'll pay for is the service of organising music.
My music collection is a total shambles.
It's inconsistently tagged.
It's encoded at a variety of bitrates and in a variety of formats, such that no MP3 player made since the glory days of iRiver will play them all without a Rockbox hack.
And it occupies disk space that could be used for anime or porn.
Frankly it's a mess.
So that's what might attract me to Virgin's offering.
If it's as complete as The Pirate Bay or more so, and the music is consistently tagged and encoded at a high quality, then a monthly fee is eminently fair to have access to that resource.
Why would I download and keep any of it?
Why should I go to the bother of maintaining my own collection?
It's right there on a service run by my own ISP at the other end of a 20 megabit connection.
Music on demand.
The colossal cloud jukebox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346559</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>permaculture</author>
	<datestamp>1245160860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good</p><p>Q: So, how much is that?</p><p>A: It's basically infinity dollars.</p><p><a href="http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/20090515.jpg" title="gawker.com">http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/20090515.jpg</a> [gawker.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound goodQ : So , how much is that ? A : It 's basically infinity dollars.http : //cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/20090515.jpg [ gawker.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound goodQ: So, how much is that?A: It's basically infinity dollars.http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/05/20090515.jpg [gawker.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344083</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>xtrafe</author>
	<datestamp>1245084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not quite sure what you think qualifies as 'morally bankrupt', but here's how I'd illustrate the term:<ul>
<li>Inspiring generations of musicians (and other professionals) to toil for free in some faint hope of rockstar-scale success is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Crowding out a cornucopia of music, and an entire economy of middle-class musicians, is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Conning people into thinking it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a produce a professional-sounding album when it really only costs a couple thousand, at most, is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Convincing musicians that they should live off recordings, rather than performance, is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Subjugating art, expression, and creativity in the name of selling impressionable children on fad after fad, is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Leveraging the legal system at taxpayers expense in a hopeless attempt to keep a depricated business model working is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Lying to people that somehow the most fundimental law of economics we have, that price = demand / supply, does not apply, as if somehow even gravity could be driven off by a marketing campaign, is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Capitalizing on ignorance to charge both producers and consumers for a middleman service that can be had entirely for free is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Trying to sell people into acting against their own self interest is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Spying on people is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Propagandizing is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Brain-washing people is morally bankrupt.</li>
<li>Telling me I can't twiddle the bits on my own harddrive any way I see fit is morally bankrupt.</li></ul><p>
But record companies don't care about being morally bankrupt; They're just in business to make money.<br>
And after all that, if you really think there's still some reason that record companies should exist, and moreover deserve some portion of your income or mine, I'd love to hear it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite sure what you think qualifies as 'morally bankrupt ' , but here 's how I 'd illustrate the term : Inspiring generations of musicians ( and other professionals ) to toil for free in some faint hope of rockstar-scale success is morally bankrupt .
Crowding out a cornucopia of music , and an entire economy of middle-class musicians , is morally bankrupt .
Conning people into thinking it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a produce a professional-sounding album when it really only costs a couple thousand , at most , is morally bankrupt .
Convincing musicians that they should live off recordings , rather than performance , is morally bankrupt .
Subjugating art , expression , and creativity in the name of selling impressionable children on fad after fad , is morally bankrupt .
Leveraging the legal system at taxpayers expense in a hopeless attempt to keep a depricated business model working is morally bankrupt .
Lying to people that somehow the most fundimental law of economics we have , that price = demand / supply , does not apply , as if somehow even gravity could be driven off by a marketing campaign , is morally bankrupt .
Capitalizing on ignorance to charge both producers and consumers for a middleman service that can be had entirely for free is morally bankrupt .
Trying to sell people into acting against their own self interest is morally bankrupt .
Spying on people is morally bankrupt .
Propagandizing is morally bankrupt .
Brain-washing people is morally bankrupt .
Telling me I ca n't twiddle the bits on my own harddrive any way I see fit is morally bankrupt .
But record companies do n't care about being morally bankrupt ; They 're just in business to make money .
And after all that , if you really think there 's still some reason that record companies should exist , and moreover deserve some portion of your income or mine , I 'd love to hear it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite sure what you think qualifies as 'morally bankrupt', but here's how I'd illustrate the term:
Inspiring generations of musicians (and other professionals) to toil for free in some faint hope of rockstar-scale success is morally bankrupt.
Crowding out a cornucopia of music, and an entire economy of middle-class musicians, is morally bankrupt.
Conning people into thinking it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a produce a professional-sounding album when it really only costs a couple thousand, at most, is morally bankrupt.
Convincing musicians that they should live off recordings, rather than performance, is morally bankrupt.
Subjugating art, expression, and creativity in the name of selling impressionable children on fad after fad, is morally bankrupt.
Leveraging the legal system at taxpayers expense in a hopeless attempt to keep a depricated business model working is morally bankrupt.
Lying to people that somehow the most fundimental law of economics we have, that price = demand / supply, does not apply, as if somehow even gravity could be driven off by a marketing campaign, is morally bankrupt.
Capitalizing on ignorance to charge both producers and consumers for a middleman service that can be had entirely for free is morally bankrupt.
Trying to sell people into acting against their own self interest is morally bankrupt.
Spying on people is morally bankrupt.
Propagandizing is morally bankrupt.
Brain-washing people is morally bankrupt.
Telling me I can't twiddle the bits on my own harddrive any way I see fit is morally bankrupt.
But record companies don't care about being morally bankrupt; They're just in business to make money.
And after all that, if you really think there's still some reason that record companies should exist, and moreover deserve some portion of your income or mine, I'd love to hear it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346005</id>
	<title>Re:I'd pay for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Give me a digital receipt with a unique key every time I download some paid-for files from you, and I'll keep it in the same directory the files are in, and back it up with them as well.  That way, if there's ever a question asked, if you keep that key on file, we can both know said mp3s have come from you, and that I haven't pirated them.</p><p>It could work brilliantly.</p></div><p>Wait, what?</p><p>Should I need proof that I'm innocent? I thought It was the other way around. I would absolutely NOT want I system where I can prove where I have bought it. If there exist such a system I would be presumed guilty if I for some reason don't have the proof. It sets a terrible precedent...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me a digital receipt with a unique key every time I download some paid-for files from you , and I 'll keep it in the same directory the files are in , and back it up with them as well .
That way , if there 's ever a question asked , if you keep that key on file , we can both know said mp3s have come from you , and that I have n't pirated them.It could work brilliantly.Wait , what ? Should I need proof that I 'm innocent ?
I thought It was the other way around .
I would absolutely NOT want I system where I can prove where I have bought it .
If there exist such a system I would be presumed guilty if I for some reason do n't have the proof .
It sets a terrible precedent.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me a digital receipt with a unique key every time I download some paid-for files from you, and I'll keep it in the same directory the files are in, and back it up with them as well.
That way, if there's ever a question asked, if you keep that key on file, we can both know said mp3s have come from you, and that I haven't pirated them.It could work brilliantly.Wait, what?Should I need proof that I'm innocent?
I thought It was the other way around.
I would absolutely NOT want I system where I can prove where I have bought it.
If there exist such a system I would be presumed guilty if I for some reason don't have the proof.
It sets a terrible precedent...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342129</id>
	<title>Re:Has to be said....</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, but you could do that right now on TPB. What's stopping you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but you could do that right now on TPB .
What 's stopping you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but you could do that right now on TPB.
What's stopping you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341457</id>
	<title>good luck.. hard to compete with $0</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1245064440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can already go to the library, or even the radio to listen to free music but I guess it is a small step in the right direction.</p><p>It only took them how many years after iTunes and Amazon mp3 was out?</p><p>&gt; In terms of both convenience and value, our new music service will be superior to anything that's available online today</p><p>Bwuahaha.  Let me know when I can download<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.FLACs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can already go to the library , or even the radio to listen to free music but I guess it is a small step in the right direction.It only took them how many years after iTunes and Amazon mp3 was out ? &gt; In terms of both convenience and value , our new music service will be superior to anything that 's available online todayBwuahaha .
Let me know when I can download .FLACs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can already go to the library, or even the radio to listen to free music but I guess it is a small step in the right direction.It only took them how many years after iTunes and Amazon mp3 was out?&gt; In terms of both convenience and value, our new music service will be superior to anything that's available online todayBwuahaha.
Let me know when I can download .FLACs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341887</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>vivaelamor</author>
	<datestamp>1245066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same company that cries it's customers are using too much bandwidth at the same time as announcing a new faster service. Given the apparent blindness to what their broadband customers want broadband wise I'd be surprised if they manage to offer a music service that keeps mp3 users happy let alone those who want something better. The more companies spend all their effort crying about how their business is hurting because of their customers, the less able they are to offer a service those customers might be satisfied with. It's not an issue limited to the big companies though, apart from Nine Inch Nails (who were hard to miss even had I not already been a fan) I haven't come across any commercial service offering FLAC since allofmp3 died.</p><p>May the IFPI and all they represent reap what they sow for what they did to allofmp3. Those guys had more sense about a good product in one pinkie than Virgin Media have in the entire company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same company that cries it 's customers are using too much bandwidth at the same time as announcing a new faster service .
Given the apparent blindness to what their broadband customers want broadband wise I 'd be surprised if they manage to offer a music service that keeps mp3 users happy let alone those who want something better .
The more companies spend all their effort crying about how their business is hurting because of their customers , the less able they are to offer a service those customers might be satisfied with .
It 's not an issue limited to the big companies though , apart from Nine Inch Nails ( who were hard to miss even had I not already been a fan ) I have n't come across any commercial service offering FLAC since allofmp3 died.May the IFPI and all they represent reap what they sow for what they did to allofmp3 .
Those guys had more sense about a good product in one pinkie than Virgin Media have in the entire company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same company that cries it's customers are using too much bandwidth at the same time as announcing a new faster service.
Given the apparent blindness to what their broadband customers want broadband wise I'd be surprised if they manage to offer a music service that keeps mp3 users happy let alone those who want something better.
The more companies spend all their effort crying about how their business is hurting because of their customers, the less able they are to offer a service those customers might be satisfied with.
It's not an issue limited to the big companies though, apart from Nine Inch Nails (who were hard to miss even had I not already been a fan) I haven't come across any commercial service offering FLAC since allofmp3 died.May the IFPI and all they represent reap what they sow for what they did to allofmp3.
Those guys had more sense about a good product in one pinkie than Virgin Media have in the entire company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341433</id>
	<title>No oversight. Who polices these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, where's the due process in all of this?</p><p>Oh right, it's business, so it can do whatever it likes.</p><p>Someone bring back the mafia, at least they had style.</p><p>I wonder how much this subscription will be, and whether it will be mandatory or optional. It won't get money to the non-label bands though, will it, just Universal. Wankers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , where 's the due process in all of this ? Oh right , it 's business , so it can do whatever it likes.Someone bring back the mafia , at least they had style.I wonder how much this subscription will be , and whether it will be mandatory or optional .
It wo n't get money to the non-label bands though , will it , just Universal .
Wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, where's the due process in all of this?Oh right, it's business, so it can do whatever it likes.Someone bring back the mafia, at least they had style.I wonder how much this subscription will be, and whether it will be mandatory or optional.
It won't get money to the non-label bands though, will it, just Universal.
Wankers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343715</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a plan</title>
	<author>lightversusdark</author>
	<datestamp>1245081060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I refer you to <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=624509&amp;cid=24321707" title="slashdot.org">my previous post</a> [slashdot.org] on the matter.<br>Most poignantly, Dizzee was No.1 again at the beginning of this month..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refer you to my previous post [ slashdot.org ] on the matter.Most poignantly , Dizzee was No.1 again at the beginning of this month. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refer you to my previous post [slashdot.org] on the matter.Most poignantly, Dizzee was No.1 again at the beginning of this month..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341727</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245065940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the average person, 128kbit lossy is more than enough quality, the only kind of people who would need anything more than that would be audiophiles and other people who love placebo effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the average person , 128kbit lossy is more than enough quality , the only kind of people who would need anything more than that would be audiophiles and other people who love placebo effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the average person, 128kbit lossy is more than enough quality, the only kind of people who would need anything more than that would be audiophiles and other people who love placebo effects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341911</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1245067080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the problem with the way things are going.  A CD that is only available in a poor quality mp3 format that you can't purchase in CD format just leaves the people with ears reverting to download.  There is no way I will pay for some mp3s when it doesn't contain all the parts of the song.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the problem with the way things are going .
A CD that is only available in a poor quality mp3 format that you ca n't purchase in CD format just leaves the people with ears reverting to download .
There is no way I will pay for some mp3s when it does n't contain all the parts of the song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the problem with the way things are going.
A CD that is only available in a poor quality mp3 format that you can't purchase in CD format just leaves the people with ears reverting to download.
There is no way I will pay for some mp3s when it doesn't contain all the parts of the song.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344291</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245086760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think they would need to take should a hard PR line.  If I were them I would start a lifestyle campaign that painted pirates as leeches that suck the bandwidth from paying subscribers.  Basically paint pirates as no account low lifes that are willing to troll through the muck of file sharing sites risking viral infections for tunes that bright clean sexy subscribers that are above such nonsense just get as part of their plan.</p><p>Of course I would never stoop to work in the soul-less advertising industry so what do I know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they would need to take should a hard PR line .
If I were them I would start a lifestyle campaign that painted pirates as leeches that suck the bandwidth from paying subscribers .
Basically paint pirates as no account low lifes that are willing to troll through the muck of file sharing sites risking viral infections for tunes that bright clean sexy subscribers that are above such nonsense just get as part of their plan.Of course I would never stoop to work in the soul-less advertising industry so what do I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they would need to take should a hard PR line.
If I were them I would start a lifestyle campaign that painted pirates as leeches that suck the bandwidth from paying subscribers.
Basically paint pirates as no account low lifes that are willing to troll through the muck of file sharing sites risking viral infections for tunes that bright clean sexy subscribers that are above such nonsense just get as part of their plan.Of course I would never stoop to work in the soul-less advertising industry so what do I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342483</id>
	<title>Mere Conduit?</title>
	<author>ougouferay</author>
	<datestamp>1245070740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending <i>persistent</i> file sharers"</p></div><p>Surely once should be enough! The police don't wait until you have <i>persistently</i> commited a crime before arresting you. In order to establish that you were a persistent file sharer wouldn't they lose the right to claim they were acting as a 'mere conduit' in order to avoid civil liability themsleves?</p><p>On a secondary note - if they warned a customer ahead of time about their alleged persistent *illegal* file sharing (as distinct from sharing, say, open source software) would they be allowed to "promote" their new service at the same time (and would this amount to a "get out of jail not-so-free card" or alternatively "demanding money with manaces")?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The UK 's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers " Surely once should be enough !
The police do n't wait until you have persistently commited a crime before arresting you .
In order to establish that you were a persistent file sharer would n't they lose the right to claim they were acting as a 'mere conduit ' in order to avoid civil liability themsleves ? On a secondary note - if they warned a customer ahead of time about their alleged persistent * illegal * file sharing ( as distinct from sharing , say , open source software ) would they be allowed to " promote " their new service at the same time ( and would this amount to a " get out of jail not-so-free card " or alternatively " demanding money with manaces " ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers"Surely once should be enough!
The police don't wait until you have persistently commited a crime before arresting you.
In order to establish that you were a persistent file sharer wouldn't they lose the right to claim they were acting as a 'mere conduit' in order to avoid civil liability themsleves?On a secondary note - if they warned a customer ahead of time about their alleged persistent *illegal* file sharing (as distinct from sharing, say, open source software) would they be allowed to "promote" their new service at the same time (and would this amount to a "get out of jail not-so-free card" or alternatively "demanding money with manaces")?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341397</id>
	<title>Virgin? Pfft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nobody this intent on raping their customers should be calling themselves a virgin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody this intent on raping their customers should be calling themselves a virgin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody this intent on raping their customers should be calling themselves a virgin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346257</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional. In ANY country.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245158220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you please direct me to the nearest British Constitution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you please direct me to the nearest British Constitution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you please direct me to the nearest British Constitution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551</id>
	<title>Has to be said....</title>
	<author>s0litaire</author>
	<datestamp>1245064920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had Virgin cable in my area.<p>
1) I'd signup for a month or 2</p><p>
2) Download everything and anything music related they offer.</p><p>
3) ???</p><p>
4) Cancel Subscription</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had Virgin cable in my area .
1 ) I 'd signup for a month or 2 2 ) Download everything and anything music related they offer .
3 ) ? ? ?
4 ) Cancel Subscription</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had Virgin cable in my area.
1) I'd signup for a month or 2
2) Download everything and anything music related they offer.
3) ???
4) Cancel Subscription</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345001</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>zeldorf</author>
	<datestamp>1245095700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Download caps, speed limits, a flat out limit on the number of files you can download.  It wouldn't be the first time an ISP has promised something that's not quite the truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Download caps , speed limits , a flat out limit on the number of files you can download .
It would n't be the first time an ISP has promised something that 's not quite the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Download caps, speed limits, a flat out limit on the number of files you can download.
It wouldn't be the first time an ISP has promised something that's not quite the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345295</id>
	<title>Do it for free</title>
	<author>Vitani</author>
	<datestamp>1245142800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK it's not exactly like-for-like, but you can listen to an insane amount of music using <a href="http://www.spotify.com/" title="spotify.com" rel="nofollow">Spotify</a> [spotify.com] - it's not a download service, but you can listen to whatever you want, whenever you want, and it's all ad-funded. I've not looked back since I signed up (I'm just waiting for Android &amp; Sonos versions!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK it 's not exactly like-for-like , but you can listen to an insane amount of music using Spotify [ spotify.com ] - it 's not a download service , but you can listen to whatever you want , whenever you want , and it 's all ad-funded .
I 've not looked back since I signed up ( I 'm just waiting for Android &amp; Sonos versions !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK it's not exactly like-for-like, but you can listen to an insane amount of music using Spotify [spotify.com] - it's not a download service, but you can listen to whatever you want, whenever you want, and it's all ad-funded.
I've not looked back since I signed up (I'm just waiting for Android &amp; Sonos versions!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343247</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245076800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?</p></div><p>Solutions:</p><ol> <li>The service is only available for $29.99 per month for those who sign a three year contract.  So if you cancel, they still get their $1080.</li><li>Files downloaded from the site have an appropriate MP3 tag saying so.  Before you can cancel your contract, you must download and run appropriate program which will delete all MP3s with the appropriate tag.  Don't want to run it?  Then you can't get out before the end of your contract.</li></ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't most people sign up for 1 month , download everything they want , and then cancel ? Solutions : The service is only available for $ 29.99 per month for those who sign a three year contract .
So if you cancel , they still get their $ 1080.Files downloaded from the site have an appropriate MP3 tag saying so .
Before you can cancel your contract , you must download and run appropriate program which will delete all MP3s with the appropriate tag .
Do n't want to run it ?
Then you ca n't get out before the end of your contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?Solutions: The service is only available for $29.99 per month for those who sign a three year contract.
So if you cancel, they still get their $1080.Files downloaded from the site have an appropriate MP3 tag saying so.
Before you can cancel your contract, you must download and run appropriate program which will delete all MP3s with the appropriate tag.
Don't want to run it?
Then you can't get out before the end of your contract.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345593</id>
	<title>Re:Not the law, their rule</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1245147660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Transferring copyrighted music on the internet is fair use, not piracy.
</p></div><p>That, as a blanket statement, is as stupid and as false as anything the RIAA or equivilent associations have ever said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Transferring copyrighted music on the internet is fair use , not piracy .
That , as a blanket statement , is as stupid and as false as anything the RIAA or equivilent associations have ever said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transferring copyrighted music on the internet is fair use, not piracy.
That, as a blanket statement, is as stupid and as false as anything the RIAA or equivilent associations have ever said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345915</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>IndieKid</author>
	<datestamp>1245153060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?</p></div><p>I think the minimum contract with Virgin Media is one year for broadband service, so that wouldn't be possible. Or rather, it wouldn't be possible to cancel after a month unless you paid the remainder of the monthly fees.</p><p>In theory it might be worth doing that - you could download the <i>entire</i> Universal catalogue in month 1 then buy out the remainder of your contract and go somewhere else. However, there will probably be limits on the amount of music you can download each month, as well as the usual Virgin Media limits on the amount of bandwidth you can use at peak times each day before throttling kicks in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't most people sign up for 1 month , download everything they want , and then cancel ? I think the minimum contract with Virgin Media is one year for broadband service , so that would n't be possible .
Or rather , it would n't be possible to cancel after a month unless you paid the remainder of the monthly fees.In theory it might be worth doing that - you could download the entire Universal catalogue in month 1 then buy out the remainder of your contract and go somewhere else .
However , there will probably be limits on the amount of music you can download each month , as well as the usual Virgin Media limits on the amount of bandwidth you can use at peak times each day before throttling kicks in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?I think the minimum contract with Virgin Media is one year for broadband service, so that wouldn't be possible.
Or rather, it wouldn't be possible to cancel after a month unless you paid the remainder of the monthly fees.In theory it might be worth doing that - you could download the entire Universal catalogue in month 1 then buy out the remainder of your contract and go somewhere else.
However, there will probably be limits on the amount of music you can download each month, as well as the usual Virgin Media limits on the amount of bandwidth you can use at peak times each day before throttling kicks in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341619</id>
	<title>Or, you know</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245065340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could just keep the all-you-can-eat service and skip all the re-education crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could just keep the all-you-can-eat service and skip all the re-education crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could just keep the all-you-can-eat service and skip all the re-education crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342571</id>
	<title>Re:Has to be said....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245071340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A sense of decency?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A sense of decency ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A sense of decency?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346247</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1245158100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the cost of the subscription is more than the cost of a VPN service like Relakks that would prevent them spying on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the cost of the subscription is more than the cost of a VPN service like Relakks that would prevent them spying on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the cost of the subscription is more than the cost of a VPN service like Relakks that would prevent them spying on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342031</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245067800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not everyone that is happy as a pig in shit with the current system are morally bankrupt.

Some of us make full use of itunes and would be quite upset if on top of our itunes bill we have to pay more money.

Others simply DON'T listen to music.  Some people are deaf you know, no reason they should be forced to pay an extra $10 for internet access.  Not to mention those of us that simply don't like music in the same way that some people don't watch TV or the appaling number of people that don't read books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone that is happy as a pig in shit with the current system are morally bankrupt .
Some of us make full use of itunes and would be quite upset if on top of our itunes bill we have to pay more money .
Others simply DO N'T listen to music .
Some people are deaf you know , no reason they should be forced to pay an extra $ 10 for internet access .
Not to mention those of us that simply do n't like music in the same way that some people do n't watch TV or the appaling number of people that do n't read books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone that is happy as a pig in shit with the current system are morally bankrupt.
Some of us make full use of itunes and would be quite upset if on top of our itunes bill we have to pay more money.
Others simply DON'T listen to music.
Some people are deaf you know, no reason they should be forced to pay an extra $10 for internet access.
Not to mention those of us that simply don't like music in the same way that some people don't watch TV or the appaling number of people that don't read books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341885</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For it to really work out, I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.</p></div><p>Nuts! I think they can do even better than CD-quality lossless. I want RAW format ripped directly from vinyl records!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For it to really work out , I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.Nuts !
I think they can do even better than CD-quality lossless .
I want RAW format ripped directly from vinyl records !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For it to really work out, I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.Nuts!
I think they can do even better than CD-quality lossless.
I want RAW format ripped directly from vinyl records!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345447</id>
	<title>Tortious Interference is illegal.</title>
	<author>plasmacutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245144960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an act of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious\_interference" title="wikipedia.org">Tortious Interference</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.</p></div></blockquote><p>I expect lawsuits on this ground, and mass defection to other ISP's</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an act of Tortious Interference [ wikipedia.org ] Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff , or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract , thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.I expect lawsuits on this ground , and mass defection to other ISP 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an act of Tortious Interference [wikipedia.org] Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.I expect lawsuits on this ground, and mass defection to other ISP's
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347535</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1245167100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That kind of thinking ends in just one thing - authorization servers which can turn your library off at any time.  Stop paying and it stops playing.  I'd be looking into the details to see if that hint is in there anywhere.</p><p>As a content producer, I'm more worried that people will download but there won't be any statistics and I wouldn't get my fair share.  If someone's going to make money off my content, I want documentation and proof that I'm not being screwed by the ISP nor the record company.  They already try to short you with their version of hollywood accounting.  I'd hate to have a situation where they use something like MusicBrainz Picard tech to ID tunes, but they miss FLAC or REAL or other formats.</p><p>I don't see how this benefits the people who make the content - just the big companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That kind of thinking ends in just one thing - authorization servers which can turn your library off at any time .
Stop paying and it stops playing .
I 'd be looking into the details to see if that hint is in there anywhere.As a content producer , I 'm more worried that people will download but there wo n't be any statistics and I would n't get my fair share .
If someone 's going to make money off my content , I want documentation and proof that I 'm not being screwed by the ISP nor the record company .
They already try to short you with their version of hollywood accounting .
I 'd hate to have a situation where they use something like MusicBrainz Picard tech to ID tunes , but they miss FLAC or REAL or other formats.I do n't see how this benefits the people who make the content - just the big companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That kind of thinking ends in just one thing - authorization servers which can turn your library off at any time.
Stop paying and it stops playing.
I'd be looking into the details to see if that hint is in there anywhere.As a content producer, I'm more worried that people will download but there won't be any statistics and I wouldn't get my fair share.
If someone's going to make money off my content, I want documentation and proof that I'm not being screwed by the ISP nor the record company.
They already try to short you with their version of hollywood accounting.
I'd hate to have a situation where they use something like MusicBrainz Picard tech to ID tunes, but they miss FLAC or REAL or other formats.I don't see how this benefits the people who make the content - just the big companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347625</id>
	<title>monthly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245167520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>broadband, unlimited downloading, drm-free... hell, I'd only need about a month of the service to get everything I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>broadband , unlimited downloading , drm-free... hell , I 'd only need about a month of the service to get everything I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>broadband, unlimited downloading, drm-free... hell, I'd only need about a month of the service to get everything I want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346499</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like hypocrites for dinner...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245160440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And, could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too?</i></p><p>Indeed, the question is what's in it for them?</p><p>I wonder if it's a method of getting rid of heavy users, since many ISPs seem unable to keep up with the demand when customers actually dare to make use of the "unlimited" service that was advertised, and that they paid for...</p><p>(VM already use bandwidth throttling if you download too much of the service you've paid for in a given time.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too ? Indeed , the question is what 's in it for them ? I wonder if it 's a method of getting rid of heavy users , since many ISPs seem unable to keep up with the demand when customers actually dare to make use of the " unlimited " service that was advertised , and that they paid for... ( VM already use bandwidth throttling if you download too much of the service you 've paid for in a given time .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, could they manage it without cutting off all their customers too?Indeed, the question is what's in it for them?I wonder if it's a method of getting rid of heavy users, since many ISPs seem unable to keep up with the demand when customers actually dare to make use of the "unlimited" service that was advertised, and that they paid for...(VM already use bandwidth throttling if you download too much of the service you've paid for in a given time.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341749</id>
	<title>Offtopic, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dislike use of the term "platform-agnostic" as "agnostic" would imply "doesn't know."  Really, what you mean is perhaps "doesn't care" which would be better expressed as "platform-apathetic."</p><p>Or perhaps you mean is "does not depend on the features of any specific platform" which could be expressed as "platform-independent."</p><p>Or, even more accurately, maybe you mean "can run on any platform" which might be expressed as "omni-platform-compatible"</p><p>The only phrase out of all of these which really fails to express what you are getting it as "platform-agnostic."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dislike use of the term " platform-agnostic " as " agnostic " would imply " does n't know .
" Really , what you mean is perhaps " does n't care " which would be better expressed as " platform-apathetic .
" Or perhaps you mean is " does not depend on the features of any specific platform " which could be expressed as " platform-independent .
" Or , even more accurately , maybe you mean " can run on any platform " which might be expressed as " omni-platform-compatible " The only phrase out of all of these which really fails to express what you are getting it as " platform-agnostic .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dislike use of the term "platform-agnostic" as "agnostic" would imply "doesn't know.
"  Really, what you mean is perhaps "doesn't care" which would be better expressed as "platform-apathetic.
"Or perhaps you mean is "does not depend on the features of any specific platform" which could be expressed as "platform-independent.
"Or, even more accurately, maybe you mean "can run on any platform" which might be expressed as "omni-platform-compatible"The only phrase out of all of these which really fails to express what you are getting it as "platform-agnostic.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343541</id>
	<title>Re:Too little, too late?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which music label did you work for, again?  I've just decided, I'm going<br>to set up a site/setup, where US "Virgin Mobil" people can send their<br>Virgin Mobile Phone to be crushed, poured into a box, and shipped to<br>Virgin in the UK---suspend THAT, sweetums!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which music label did you work for , again ?
I 've just decided , I 'm goingto set up a site/setup , where US " Virgin Mobil " people can send theirVirgin Mobile Phone to be crushed , poured into a box , and shipped toVirgin in the UK---suspend THAT , sweetums !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which music label did you work for, again?
I've just decided, I'm goingto set up a site/setup, where US "Virgin Mobil" people can send theirVirgin Mobile Phone to be crushed, poured into a box, and shipped toVirgin in the UK---suspend THAT, sweetums!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342911</id>
	<title>Hurrah</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1245074040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am totally stoked about Virgin Media's forthcoming music download system and fully believe that it won't be an overhyped sack of crap at all. The downloads will certainly be unlimited, fast, cheap, not watermarked and of at least cd quality from an enormous library of popular, familiar tunes the exact same recordings of which will be currently or formerly available in record shops on cd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am totally stoked about Virgin Media 's forthcoming music download system and fully believe that it wo n't be an overhyped sack of crap at all .
The downloads will certainly be unlimited , fast , cheap , not watermarked and of at least cd quality from an enormous library of popular , familiar tunes the exact same recordings of which will be currently or formerly available in record shops on cd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am totally stoked about Virgin Media's forthcoming music download system and fully believe that it won't be an overhyped sack of crap at all.
The downloads will certainly be unlimited, fast, cheap, not watermarked and of at least cd quality from an enormous library of popular, familiar tunes the exact same recordings of which will be currently or formerly available in record shops on cd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341725</id>
	<title>Re:Monthly fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245065940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the concept that the internet IS information and that your connection fee is a guarantee of that information seriously impedes the idea that some information is worth paying for.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; I know several people smarter than me, I hope you do too. It doesn't make me jealous that there's some things they can think of better than I can... even in the general sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the concept that the internet IS information and that your connection fee is a guarantee of that information seriously impedes the idea that some information is worth paying for .
    I know several people smarter than me , I hope you do too .
It does n't make me jealous that there 's some things they can think of better than I can... even in the general sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the concept that the internet IS information and that your connection fee is a guarantee of that information seriously impedes the idea that some information is worth paying for.
  
  I know several people smarter than me, I hope you do too.
It doesn't make me jealous that there's some things they can think of better than I can... even in the general sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342133</id>
	<title>Re:Too little, too late?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245068340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they have a higher standard of proof than the RIAA, then I'm fine with them terminating pirates.</p><p>As far as I'm concerned, wankers who pirate stuff just to avoid paying for it are just as much scum as the RIAA, in that they're trying to freeload off the efforts of others.</p><p>Generally, the law should be obeyed.  The fact that these pirates are getting away with it doesn't make it right, or make the law flawed.</p><p>If civil rights were at stake I might advocate civil disobedience.  However, that is not the case here, and thus the pirates don't have a moral leg to stand on.</p><p>Economically, they are also hurting the pockets of the companies that make the stuff, either by pirating instead of buying, or letting someone else freeload off of them.</p><p>So, pirates get zero sympathy from me, especially if they get caught red handed with a smoking gun in their hand.</p><p>As long as no innocent bystanders suffer, I say let the pirates go to hell.  The only thing they're doing is helping karma tit the middlemen for tatting the artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they have a higher standard of proof than the RIAA , then I 'm fine with them terminating pirates.As far as I 'm concerned , wankers who pirate stuff just to avoid paying for it are just as much scum as the RIAA , in that they 're trying to freeload off the efforts of others.Generally , the law should be obeyed .
The fact that these pirates are getting away with it does n't make it right , or make the law flawed.If civil rights were at stake I might advocate civil disobedience .
However , that is not the case here , and thus the pirates do n't have a moral leg to stand on.Economically , they are also hurting the pockets of the companies that make the stuff , either by pirating instead of buying , or letting someone else freeload off of them.So , pirates get zero sympathy from me , especially if they get caught red handed with a smoking gun in their hand.As long as no innocent bystanders suffer , I say let the pirates go to hell .
The only thing they 're doing is helping karma tit the middlemen for tatting the artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they have a higher standard of proof than the RIAA, then I'm fine with them terminating pirates.As far as I'm concerned, wankers who pirate stuff just to avoid paying for it are just as much scum as the RIAA, in that they're trying to freeload off the efforts of others.Generally, the law should be obeyed.
The fact that these pirates are getting away with it doesn't make it right, or make the law flawed.If civil rights were at stake I might advocate civil disobedience.
However, that is not the case here, and thus the pirates don't have a moral leg to stand on.Economically, they are also hurting the pockets of the companies that make the stuff, either by pirating instead of buying, or letting someone else freeload off of them.So, pirates get zero sympathy from me, especially if they get caught red handed with a smoking gun in their hand.As long as no innocent bystanders suffer, I say let the pirates go to hell.
The only thing they're doing is helping karma tit the middlemen for tatting the artists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341697</id>
	<title>Not the law, their rule</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1245065760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives. They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access.</p></div></blockquote><p>By this they really mean they will ban you from their network not because you're breaking the law, but because you're not following their EULA, which would stipulate you may not transfer copyrighted material by other means than their service. (which is completely unrelated to what the law does and doesn't allow)</p><p>Transferring copyrighted music on the internet is fair use, not piracy.<br>By educating people about online piracy, they really mean lying to them to make them believe their rights do not exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives .
They include , as a last resort for persistent offenders , a temporary suspension of internet access.By this they really mean they will ban you from their network not because you 're breaking the law , but because you 're not following their EULA , which would stipulate you may not transfer copyrighted material by other means than their service .
( which is completely unrelated to what the law does and does n't allow ) Transferring copyrighted music on the internet is fair use , not piracy.By educating people about online piracy , they really mean lying to them to make them believe their rights do not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives.
They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access.By this they really mean they will ban you from their network not because you're breaking the law, but because you're not following their EULA, which would stipulate you may not transfer copyrighted material by other means than their service.
(which is completely unrelated to what the law does and doesn't allow)Transferring copyrighted music on the internet is fair use, not piracy.By educating people about online piracy, they really mean lying to them to make them believe their rights do not exist.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344529</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1245089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel? Or are they really going to make it cheap enough, and adding new (good) content frequently enough, to make the whole thing worth it? I have my doubts.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Good question. I would guess that they would do a contract term with the service. I'd guess 12 or even 24 months, and the requisite early termination fee.</p></div></div><p>Or more likely <b>all of the above</b> and '<b>all you can eat</b>' really means '<b>all we allow you to eat</b>'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't most people sign up for 1 month , download everything they want , and then cancel ?
Or are they really going to make it cheap enough , and adding new ( good ) content frequently enough , to make the whole thing worth it ?
I have my doubts.Good question .
I would guess that they would do a contract term with the service .
I 'd guess 12 or even 24 months , and the requisite early termination fee.Or more likely all of the above and 'all you can eat ' really means 'all we allow you to eat' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?
Or are they really going to make it cheap enough, and adding new (good) content frequently enough, to make the whole thing worth it?
I have my doubts.Good question.
I would guess that they would do a contract term with the service.
I'd guess 12 or even 24 months, and the requisite early termination fee.Or more likely all of the above and 'all you can eat' really means 'all we allow you to eat'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342209</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245068880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Previous subscription-based systems have relied on a form of DRM to enforce the payment.<br>Otherwise, in theory, you could join up and leech like mad for a while and drop the subscription when you had enough music.<br>Or don't we consider the music "calling home" occasionally as DRM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Previous subscription-based systems have relied on a form of DRM to enforce the payment.Otherwise , in theory , you could join up and leech like mad for a while and drop the subscription when you had enough music.Or do n't we consider the music " calling home " occasionally as DRM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Previous subscription-based systems have relied on a form of DRM to enforce the payment.Otherwise, in theory, you could join up and leech like mad for a while and drop the subscription when you had enough music.Or don't we consider the music "calling home" occasionally as DRM?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341663</id>
	<title>Re:Has to be said....</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1245065520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, they've (Virgin at least) figured out that they're getting money if you do that, rather than that other copyrightey-violatey thing that so many people do already.</p><p>And you never know, maybe you end up (somehow) enjoying the service enough to keep coming back from time to time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , they 've ( Virgin at least ) figured out that they 're getting money if you do that , rather than that other copyrightey-violatey thing that so many people do already.And you never know , maybe you end up ( somehow ) enjoying the service enough to keep coming back from time to time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, they've (Virgin at least) figured out that they're getting money if you do that, rather than that other copyrightey-violatey thing that so many people do already.And you never know, maybe you end up (somehow) enjoying the service enough to keep coming back from time to time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245064980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a consumer side of things, a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good, but it seems awfully fishy that Universal would offer it.  Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?  Or are they really going to make it cheap enough, and adding new (good) content frequently enough, to make the whole thing worth it?  I have my doubts.
</p><p>As far as suspending copyright infringers, I've always been concerned by how readily ISPs seem to punish their own customers over a civil dispute in which they ought to have no stake.  I guess if they're getting a cut of the action with this service, it makes some sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a consumer side of things , a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good , but it seems awfully fishy that Universal would offer it .
Would n't most people sign up for 1 month , download everything they want , and then cancel ?
Or are they really going to make it cheap enough , and adding new ( good ) content frequently enough , to make the whole thing worth it ?
I have my doubts .
As far as suspending copyright infringers , I 've always been concerned by how readily ISPs seem to punish their own customers over a civil dispute in which they ought to have no stake .
I guess if they 're getting a cut of the action with this service , it makes some sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a consumer side of things, a pay-per-month model of getting access to a DRM-free library does sound good, but it seems awfully fishy that Universal would offer it.
Wouldn't most people sign up for 1 month, download everything they want, and then cancel?
Or are they really going to make it cheap enough, and adding new (good) content frequently enough, to make the whole thing worth it?
I have my doubts.
As far as suspending copyright infringers, I've always been concerned by how readily ISPs seem to punish their own customers over a civil dispute in which they ought to have no stake.
I guess if they're getting a cut of the action with this service, it makes some sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341371</id>
	<title>brr.</title>
	<author>Tibor the Hun</author>
	<datestamp>1245064020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>frost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>frost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frost?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346915</id>
	<title>Re:I'd pay for that</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Pirates generally only trade what's popular; being able to drink straight from the labels' tap means I can get whatever I want, whether it is popular or not</i></p><p>I have no idea, but I'd be very surprised if the available collection offered under this deal is broader than what someone could find by downloading already (especially as it's only one music company doing this). Add to that things like rare bootlegs - do you think they'll be offered by Universal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirates generally only trade what 's popular ; being able to drink straight from the labels ' tap means I can get whatever I want , whether it is popular or notI have no idea , but I 'd be very surprised if the available collection offered under this deal is broader than what someone could find by downloading already ( especially as it 's only one music company doing this ) .
Add to that things like rare bootlegs - do you think they 'll be offered by Universal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirates generally only trade what's popular; being able to drink straight from the labels' tap means I can get whatever I want, whether it is popular or notI have no idea, but I'd be very surprised if the available collection offered under this deal is broader than what someone could find by downloading already (especially as it's only one music company doing this).
Add to that things like rare bootlegs - do you think they'll be offered by Universal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343629</id>
	<title>Re:Monthly fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a further question.  They are going to try this Pay Big Brother shit in<br>the UK--the same UK where they are torching off "traffic ticket cams" around<br>three times a week on average?  What will happen to the physical connection boxes of<br>the OTHER inmates/subscribers once they suspend the right person?<br>I hope there's a website for "torched internet boxes", complete with pics, too!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a further question .
They are going to try this Pay Big Brother shit inthe UK--the same UK where they are torching off " traffic ticket cams " aroundthree times a week on average ?
What will happen to the physical connection boxes ofthe OTHER inmates/subscribers once they suspend the right person ? I hope there 's a website for " torched internet boxes " , complete with pics , too ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a further question.
They are going to try this Pay Big Brother shit inthe UK--the same UK where they are torching off "traffic ticket cams" aroundthree times a week on average?
What will happen to the physical connection boxes ofthe OTHER inmates/subscribers once they suspend the right person?I hope there's a website for "torched internet boxes", complete with pics, too!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345293</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1245142800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the sarcasm? Lossless, DRM free, CD-quality seems a very reasonable thing to ask for. It's what you would get if you bought a CD, after all.</p><p>The difference is that, with online distribution, there is no medium: no physical CD needs to be pressed, no case need be manufactured, no cover art printed, the package doesn't have to be distributed, it doesn't have to be stored, and so on. So this ought to be cheaper for the distributor.</p><p>As for CD-quality being the least one would expect: in this day and age, with movies being distributed with surround sound and many people having hardware capable of rendering it, yes, CDs are starting to get long in the tooth. Stereo? 44.1 KHz? That is indeed the least you would expect.</p><p>As for lossless... Yes, of course. MP3 was all the rage in the 1990s when a gigabyte was a lot of storage. Today, harddisks are easily 1000 times as large. I think we can afford for our music files to be a factor 50 larger. And if you still want lossy compression, you can always do it yourself<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and make your own trade-off between quality and size.</p><p>All in all, I think the grandparent's asking for lossless CD-quality music is entirely reasonable. The only reason why it might not seem that way is because the incumbent players in the music industry want to fight it every step of the way. Yes, lossless, DRM-free, CD-quality music is probably a pipe dream. But it's not because it's asking too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the sarcasm ?
Lossless , DRM free , CD-quality seems a very reasonable thing to ask for .
It 's what you would get if you bought a CD , after all.The difference is that , with online distribution , there is no medium : no physical CD needs to be pressed , no case need be manufactured , no cover art printed , the package does n't have to be distributed , it does n't have to be stored , and so on .
So this ought to be cheaper for the distributor.As for CD-quality being the least one would expect : in this day and age , with movies being distributed with surround sound and many people having hardware capable of rendering it , yes , CDs are starting to get long in the tooth .
Stereo ? 44.1 KHz ?
That is indeed the least you would expect.As for lossless... Yes , of course .
MP3 was all the rage in the 1990s when a gigabyte was a lot of storage .
Today , harddisks are easily 1000 times as large .
I think we can afford for our music files to be a factor 50 larger .
And if you still want lossy compression , you can always do it yourself ... and make your own trade-off between quality and size.All in all , I think the grandparent 's asking for lossless CD-quality music is entirely reasonable .
The only reason why it might not seem that way is because the incumbent players in the music industry want to fight it every step of the way .
Yes , lossless , DRM-free , CD-quality music is probably a pipe dream .
But it 's not because it 's asking too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the sarcasm?
Lossless, DRM free, CD-quality seems a very reasonable thing to ask for.
It's what you would get if you bought a CD, after all.The difference is that, with online distribution, there is no medium: no physical CD needs to be pressed, no case need be manufactured, no cover art printed, the package doesn't have to be distributed, it doesn't have to be stored, and so on.
So this ought to be cheaper for the distributor.As for CD-quality being the least one would expect: in this day and age, with movies being distributed with surround sound and many people having hardware capable of rendering it, yes, CDs are starting to get long in the tooth.
Stereo? 44.1 KHz?
That is indeed the least you would expect.As for lossless... Yes, of course.
MP3 was all the rage in the 1990s when a gigabyte was a lot of storage.
Today, harddisks are easily 1000 times as large.
I think we can afford for our music files to be a factor 50 larger.
And if you still want lossy compression, you can always do it yourself ... and make your own trade-off between quality and size.All in all, I think the grandparent's asking for lossless CD-quality music is entirely reasonable.
The only reason why it might not seem that way is because the incumbent players in the music industry want to fight it every step of the way.
Yes, lossless, DRM-free, CD-quality music is probably a pipe dream.
But it's not because it's asking too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342099</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting but...</title>
	<author>frostband</author>
	<datestamp>1245068040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For it to really work out, I would want <b>at least</b> CD quality lossless compression.</p></div><p>That's the least?  You ask for so little...
</p><p>/sarcasm</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For it to really work out , I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.That 's the least ?
You ask for so little.. . /sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For it to really work out, I would want at least CD quality lossless compression.That's the least?
You ask for so little...
/sarcasm
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28351185</id>
	<title>Monopoly?</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1245180480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Virgin provides Internet and mobile access, as well as content and distribution channels, isn't this the same as owning a steel mill, the railroad tracks and the trains that drive on them (delivering the steel)?

IANAL, and maybe I've got this model wrong, but I'm open to corrections<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Virgin provides Internet and mobile access , as well as content and distribution channels , is n't this the same as owning a steel mill , the railroad tracks and the trains that drive on them ( delivering the steel ) ?
IANAL , and maybe I 've got this model wrong , but I 'm open to corrections .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Virgin provides Internet and mobile access, as well as content and distribution channels, isn't this the same as owning a steel mill, the railroad tracks and the trains that drive on them (delivering the steel)?
IANAL, and maybe I've got this model wrong, but I'm open to corrections ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346267</id>
	<title>Re:I'd pay for that</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1245158340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pirates generally only trade what's popular? Utter rubbish.<br><br>When I was a "Pirate", I had 280gb of MP3s plus a few FLACs. None were from any of the big boys. In fact, most record labels I collected had only ever produced 20 or so discs. I had ALL scene releases for my choosen genres dating back to 1990. All record labels were collected - well over a hundred. My collection was a source of admiration amongst my fellow sharers. If only I'd backed up that 80gb hard drive...<br><br>Why does everyone think we want or need mainstream cheesy pop and rock? The dance scene is massive in the UK and the rest of Europe. It draws more weekly admission money than all the "live band" concerts put together and yet it's not promoted at all. Sure, I can pull figures out my arse, but I prefer to trust my own eyes. The two large clubs in my town draw 1,500 each on a Friday and Saturday. Knowing about Pendulum or The Prodigy is only a the small tip of the cheese-berg. Not knowing about them, or any other 'group', sets you aside from all the other trainspotters.<br><br>Virgin can kiss mine as far as this goes. Who do they thnk they are kidding with "it'll only cost the same as a couple of albums a month"? I already give them 120 quid a month, where do they think another 20 is coming from? Do they really think 20 quid to entertain my kids and their cheesy pop habit is affordable?<br><br>Branson, you suck. Virgin, and their lack of decent HD, suck. You could have been so good after buying NTL but you failed and you continue to fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirates generally only trade what 's popular ?
Utter rubbish.When I was a " Pirate " , I had 280gb of MP3s plus a few FLACs .
None were from any of the big boys .
In fact , most record labels I collected had only ever produced 20 or so discs .
I had ALL scene releases for my choosen genres dating back to 1990 .
All record labels were collected - well over a hundred .
My collection was a source of admiration amongst my fellow sharers .
If only I 'd backed up that 80gb hard drive...Why does everyone think we want or need mainstream cheesy pop and rock ?
The dance scene is massive in the UK and the rest of Europe .
It draws more weekly admission money than all the " live band " concerts put together and yet it 's not promoted at all .
Sure , I can pull figures out my arse , but I prefer to trust my own eyes .
The two large clubs in my town draw 1,500 each on a Friday and Saturday .
Knowing about Pendulum or The Prodigy is only a the small tip of the cheese-berg .
Not knowing about them , or any other 'group ' , sets you aside from all the other trainspotters.Virgin can kiss mine as far as this goes .
Who do they thnk they are kidding with " it 'll only cost the same as a couple of albums a month " ?
I already give them 120 quid a month , where do they think another 20 is coming from ?
Do they really think 20 quid to entertain my kids and their cheesy pop habit is affordable ? Branson , you suck .
Virgin , and their lack of decent HD , suck .
You could have been so good after buying NTL but you failed and you continue to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirates generally only trade what's popular?
Utter rubbish.When I was a "Pirate", I had 280gb of MP3s plus a few FLACs.
None were from any of the big boys.
In fact, most record labels I collected had only ever produced 20 or so discs.
I had ALL scene releases for my choosen genres dating back to 1990.
All record labels were collected - well over a hundred.
My collection was a source of admiration amongst my fellow sharers.
If only I'd backed up that 80gb hard drive...Why does everyone think we want or need mainstream cheesy pop and rock?
The dance scene is massive in the UK and the rest of Europe.
It draws more weekly admission money than all the "live band" concerts put together and yet it's not promoted at all.
Sure, I can pull figures out my arse, but I prefer to trust my own eyes.
The two large clubs in my town draw 1,500 each on a Friday and Saturday.
Knowing about Pendulum or The Prodigy is only a the small tip of the cheese-berg.
Not knowing about them, or any other 'group', sets you aside from all the other trainspotters.Virgin can kiss mine as far as this goes.
Who do they thnk they are kidding with "it'll only cost the same as a couple of albums a month"?
I already give them 120 quid a month, where do they think another 20 is coming from?
Do they really think 20 quid to entertain my kids and their cheesy pop habit is affordable?Branson, you suck.
Virgin, and their lack of decent HD, suck.
You could have been so good after buying NTL but you failed and you continue to fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342509</id>
	<title>ISP's Should not be content providers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245070980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blatant conflict of interest. Of course we will get censorship practices when the ISP's deal media content. Even if they get what they want and stop pirating there will be something else they will want to limit next. Maybe competing content providers I suppose? And, not all file sharing is pirating as these content providers would like everyone to think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blatant conflict of interest .
Of course we will get censorship practices when the ISP 's deal media content .
Even if they get what they want and stop pirating there will be something else they will want to limit next .
Maybe competing content providers I suppose ?
And , not all file sharing is pirating as these content providers would like everyone to think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blatant conflict of interest.
Of course we will get censorship practices when the ISP's deal media content.
Even if they get what they want and stop pirating there will be something else they will want to limit next.
Maybe competing content providers I suppose?
And, not all file sharing is pirating as these content providers would like everyone to think it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341733</id>
	<title>laff....</title>
	<author>koan</author>
	<datestamp>1245066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now we are down to "all you can download for a monthly fee" and "education for file shares + temporary suspension of ISP services, my my my how diluted has war on filesharing gotten?</p><p>Not to long ago they were trying for suing the crap out of you possible time in prison and "3 strikes no more internet for you" and while that's a mixed bag of different countries solutions it's clear that they aren't getting any where so this lean approach is how it's going to be.</p><p>I'm amused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now we are down to " all you can download for a monthly fee " and " education for file shares + temporary suspension of ISP services , my my my how diluted has war on filesharing gotten ? Not to long ago they were trying for suing the crap out of you possible time in prison and " 3 strikes no more internet for you " and while that 's a mixed bag of different countries solutions it 's clear that they are n't getting any where so this lean approach is how it 's going to be.I 'm amused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now we are down to "all you can download for a monthly fee" and "education for file shares + temporary suspension of ISP services, my my my how diluted has war on filesharing gotten?Not to long ago they were trying for suing the crap out of you possible time in prison and "3 strikes no more internet for you" and while that's a mixed bag of different countries solutions it's clear that they aren't getting any where so this lean approach is how it's going to be.I'm amused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341873</id>
	<title>Re:Monthly fee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I wish I had your service. My service, OC-1, does not cover it. Fuck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I wish I had your service .
My service , OC-1 , does not cover it .
Fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I wish I had your service.
My service, OC-1, does not cover it.
Fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342979</id>
	<title>Where are the virgins?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245074580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread is useless without pics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread is useless without pics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread is useless without pics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342741</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>laughingcoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1245072660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the point of ISP's suspecting copyright infringing users is pretty simple, and one that has yet to be tried out.</p><p>Real simple.  There is no safe harbor for what your customers are doing.  If they are doing illegal things that the ISP can detect and block - something that is probably not far off - they have an obligation to do so.  Failure to do so means they are an accomplice and liable for damages, at least contributory damages.</p><p>Today nobody has tried this approach because it is not clear that an ISP can detect copyright infringement in a clear and unambiguous way.  Should this change, ISPs will certainly be viewed differently in the US.</p></div><p>You are not correct on this, at least not in the US. One good thing that came out of the DMCA (continue reading once you get off the floor) is the "safe harbor" provision, aka OCILLA. An ISP is considered under section "a" in most cases, as they are providing only a connection, not hosting the material. If they are hosting the material (for example, an ISP who gives each user space to host a personal website), they can still follow the safe harbor provisions for that service under section "b", while remaining exempt under "a" for their normal connectivity service.</p><p>Under section "a", the ISP has effectively no liability. The copyright holder can sue the user if they believe the user is infringing, but that's it. Under section "b", since the ISP is hosting the material, they do have to take it down if they are sent an OCILLA request. The moment they do, they are immune from liability. If you, the user, believe that they are in error and that the material in question is not their copyrighted material, you may send a response for it to be put back up. Unless the copyright holder then files in court and gets an injunction, the ISP may then do so. At that point, it's again between you and the copyright holder, with the ISP out of the picture.</p><p>This is as it should be. If I threaten or harass someone over the telephone or by sending them mail, I can be sued or arrested, but you shouldn't be able to sue or prosecute the phone company or the post office. This is no different. An ISP should no more be monitoring your Internet communications than the telephone company or mailman should be monitoring your calls and letters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point of ISP 's suspecting copyright infringing users is pretty simple , and one that has yet to be tried out.Real simple .
There is no safe harbor for what your customers are doing .
If they are doing illegal things that the ISP can detect and block - something that is probably not far off - they have an obligation to do so .
Failure to do so means they are an accomplice and liable for damages , at least contributory damages.Today nobody has tried this approach because it is not clear that an ISP can detect copyright infringement in a clear and unambiguous way .
Should this change , ISPs will certainly be viewed differently in the US.You are not correct on this , at least not in the US .
One good thing that came out of the DMCA ( continue reading once you get off the floor ) is the " safe harbor " provision , aka OCILLA .
An ISP is considered under section " a " in most cases , as they are providing only a connection , not hosting the material .
If they are hosting the material ( for example , an ISP who gives each user space to host a personal website ) , they can still follow the safe harbor provisions for that service under section " b " , while remaining exempt under " a " for their normal connectivity service.Under section " a " , the ISP has effectively no liability .
The copyright holder can sue the user if they believe the user is infringing , but that 's it .
Under section " b " , since the ISP is hosting the material , they do have to take it down if they are sent an OCILLA request .
The moment they do , they are immune from liability .
If you , the user , believe that they are in error and that the material in question is not their copyrighted material , you may send a response for it to be put back up .
Unless the copyright holder then files in court and gets an injunction , the ISP may then do so .
At that point , it 's again between you and the copyright holder , with the ISP out of the picture.This is as it should be .
If I threaten or harass someone over the telephone or by sending them mail , I can be sued or arrested , but you should n't be able to sue or prosecute the phone company or the post office .
This is no different .
An ISP should no more be monitoring your Internet communications than the telephone company or mailman should be monitoring your calls and letters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point of ISP's suspecting copyright infringing users is pretty simple, and one that has yet to be tried out.Real simple.
There is no safe harbor for what your customers are doing.
If they are doing illegal things that the ISP can detect and block - something that is probably not far off - they have an obligation to do so.
Failure to do so means they are an accomplice and liable for damages, at least contributory damages.Today nobody has tried this approach because it is not clear that an ISP can detect copyright infringement in a clear and unambiguous way.
Should this change, ISPs will certainly be viewed differently in the US.You are not correct on this, at least not in the US.
One good thing that came out of the DMCA (continue reading once you get off the floor) is the "safe harbor" provision, aka OCILLA.
An ISP is considered under section "a" in most cases, as they are providing only a connection, not hosting the material.
If they are hosting the material (for example, an ISP who gives each user space to host a personal website), they can still follow the safe harbor provisions for that service under section "b", while remaining exempt under "a" for their normal connectivity service.Under section "a", the ISP has effectively no liability.
The copyright holder can sue the user if they believe the user is infringing, but that's it.
Under section "b", since the ISP is hosting the material, they do have to take it down if they are sent an OCILLA request.
The moment they do, they are immune from liability.
If you, the user, believe that they are in error and that the material in question is not their copyrighted material, you may send a response for it to be put back up.
Unless the copyright holder then files in court and gets an injunction, the ISP may then do so.
At that point, it's again between you and the copyright holder, with the ISP out of the picture.This is as it should be.
If I threaten or harass someone over the telephone or by sending them mail, I can be sued or arrested, but you shouldn't be able to sue or prosecute the phone company or the post office.
This is no different.
An ISP should no more be monitoring your Internet communications than the telephone company or mailman should be monitoring your calls and letters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341969</id>
	<title>Re:No oversight. Who polices these people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No oversight. Who polices these people?</p></div></blockquote><p>Their customers. If mistakes/abuses are common enough, they'll have a class action lawsuit on their hands.</p><p>They're a business, as you said. If they have a system for weeding out pirates that they think will work, they can use it in their service. If it doesn't work, well, then it won't be very successful.</p><blockquote><div><p>I wonder how much this subscription will be, and whether it will be mandatory or optional.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't. I'm pretty damn sure it will be optional.</p><blockquote><div><p>It won't get money to the non-label bands though, will it, just Universal.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, but then again, they were never selling the music of non-label bands, were they? All you'll be getting for the subscription price will be RIAA signed music. If you want non-label bands, and you don't want to rip them off, you'll have to actually pay for the music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No oversight .
Who polices these people ? Their customers .
If mistakes/abuses are common enough , they 'll have a class action lawsuit on their hands.They 're a business , as you said .
If they have a system for weeding out pirates that they think will work , they can use it in their service .
If it does n't work , well , then it wo n't be very successful.I wonder how much this subscription will be , and whether it will be mandatory or optional.I do n't .
I 'm pretty damn sure it will be optional.It wo n't get money to the non-label bands though , will it , just Universal.No , but then again , they were never selling the music of non-label bands , were they ?
All you 'll be getting for the subscription price will be RIAA signed music .
If you want non-label bands , and you do n't want to rip them off , you 'll have to actually pay for the music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No oversight.
Who polices these people?Their customers.
If mistakes/abuses are common enough, they'll have a class action lawsuit on their hands.They're a business, as you said.
If they have a system for weeding out pirates that they think will work, they can use it in their service.
If it doesn't work, well, then it won't be very successful.I wonder how much this subscription will be, and whether it will be mandatory or optional.I don't.
I'm pretty damn sure it will be optional.It won't get money to the non-label bands though, will it, just Universal.No, but then again, they were never selling the music of non-label bands, were they?
All you'll be getting for the subscription price will be RIAA signed music.
If you want non-label bands, and you don't want to rip them off, you'll have to actually pay for the music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341701</id>
	<title>Information?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245065760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis, using <i>allegations</i> provided to it by Universal Music.</p></div><p>Fixed that for your.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK 's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis , using allegations provided to it by Universal Music.Fixed that for your .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis, using allegations provided to it by Universal Music.Fixed that for your.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346701</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245161880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want?</i></p><p>Minimum term contracts. Or the fact that most people would happily subscribe continually (not everyone has such limited tastes that they can download everything they'd ever want to hear in one go...)</p><p><i>Or, simply having one person in a group sign up and "share" offline? </i></p><p>They already have this problem. My guess is that they'd prefer going back to the days of "person gives a taped copy to his friend" if they can avoid "person shares with thousands of people".</p><p>You might as well ask, how can a cable company ever sell TV - surely by your reasoning, only one person would buy it, then he'd tape all the shows for his friends?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list ; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want ? Minimum term contracts .
Or the fact that most people would happily subscribe continually ( not everyone has such limited tastes that they can download everything they 'd ever want to hear in one go... ) Or , simply having one person in a group sign up and " share " offline ?
They already have this problem .
My guess is that they 'd prefer going back to the days of " person gives a taped copy to his friend " if they can avoid " person shares with thousands of people " .You might as well ask , how can a cable company ever sell TV - surely by your reasoning , only one person would buy it , then he 'd tape all the shows for his friends ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be surprised if it were truly DRM free - if Universal releases their entire play list; what would be the point of staying subscribed once you got the songs you really want?Minimum term contracts.
Or the fact that most people would happily subscribe continually (not everyone has such limited tastes that they can download everything they'd ever want to hear in one go...)Or, simply having one person in a group sign up and "share" offline?
They already have this problem.
My guess is that they'd prefer going back to the days of "person gives a taped copy to his friend" if they can avoid "person shares with thousands of people".You might as well ask, how can a cable company ever sell TV - surely by your reasoning, only one person would buy it, then he'd tape all the shows for his friends?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345897</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245152760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?</p><p>Not remotely (I doubt that the legal framework in this country would even permit that, but either way it's not the case).</p><p>The UK went through a spate of privately-funded fibre-optic cabling for TV offerings a few years ago (mostly in urban areas), followed fairly quickly by another spate of company mergers, takeovers and so on. Virgin basically owns a sizeable portion of that infrastructure, and that's the medium by which they're offering their service. But alongside that is the DSL picture. The UK doesn't have the same set-up as the US, with lots of local phone companies; we've had a single trunk network over *almost* the whole country since 1912 (the single exception now is Kingston Communications, servicing Hull on the north-east coast, and which ceased to be municipally-owned about 10 years ago). BT, who operate the main network, are an ISP in their own right, but also have legal obligations to provide access for other ISPs (most recently local loop unbundling). The upshot is that, when I decided about a month ago that I wanted to jump ship on my existing ADSL supplier, I had a choice of a dozen or more ISPs, all providing packages of varying sorts and terminating over the same twisted-pair landline from my local telephone exchange. I also have a cable running right past the front of my property, so could, had I wished, have gone for Virgin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly ? Not remotely ( I doubt that the legal framework in this country would even permit that , but either way it 's not the case ) .The UK went through a spate of privately-funded fibre-optic cabling for TV offerings a few years ago ( mostly in urban areas ) , followed fairly quickly by another spate of company mergers , takeovers and so on .
Virgin basically owns a sizeable portion of that infrastructure , and that 's the medium by which they 're offering their service .
But alongside that is the DSL picture .
The UK does n't have the same set-up as the US , with lots of local phone companies ; we 've had a single trunk network over * almost * the whole country since 1912 ( the single exception now is Kingston Communications , servicing Hull on the north-east coast , and which ceased to be municipally-owned about 10 years ago ) .
BT , who operate the main network , are an ISP in their own right , but also have legal obligations to provide access for other ISPs ( most recently local loop unbundling ) .
The upshot is that , when I decided about a month ago that I wanted to jump ship on my existing ADSL supplier , I had a choice of a dozen or more ISPs , all providing packages of varying sorts and terminating over the same twisted-pair landline from my local telephone exchange .
I also have a cable running right past the front of my property , so could , had I wished , have gone for Virgin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?Not remotely (I doubt that the legal framework in this country would even permit that, but either way it's not the case).The UK went through a spate of privately-funded fibre-optic cabling for TV offerings a few years ago (mostly in urban areas), followed fairly quickly by another spate of company mergers, takeovers and so on.
Virgin basically owns a sizeable portion of that infrastructure, and that's the medium by which they're offering their service.
But alongside that is the DSL picture.
The UK doesn't have the same set-up as the US, with lots of local phone companies; we've had a single trunk network over *almost* the whole country since 1912 (the single exception now is Kingston Communications, servicing Hull on the north-east coast, and which ceased to be municipally-owned about 10 years ago).
BT, who operate the main network, are an ISP in their own right, but also have legal obligations to provide access for other ISPs (most recently local loop unbundling).
The upshot is that, when I decided about a month ago that I wanted to jump ship on my existing ADSL supplier, I had a choice of a dozen or more ISPs, all providing packages of varying sorts and terminating over the same twisted-pair landline from my local telephone exchange.
I also have a cable running right past the front of my property, so could, had I wished, have gone for Virgin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1245064260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. First off, when they say suspend, does that only go for Virgin Media customers (if there are any, not sure what the UK ISP world is like)?</p><p>Second, the all-you-can-download idea sounds reasonable. If the catalog is extensive enough (including classical), and it truly is DRM-free and platform-agnostic, I could actually see myself using this. They had better make sure the file metadata is good (a large collection with good metadata is worth paying for), and it'd be nice if they had something like iTune's "Genius" to find things you might like based on your current collection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
First off , when they say suspend , does that only go for Virgin Media customers ( if there are any , not sure what the UK ISP world is like ) ? Second , the all-you-can-download idea sounds reasonable .
If the catalog is extensive enough ( including classical ) , and it truly is DRM-free and platform-agnostic , I could actually see myself using this .
They had better make sure the file metadata is good ( a large collection with good metadata is worth paying for ) , and it 'd be nice if they had something like iTune 's " Genius " to find things you might like based on your current collection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
First off, when they say suspend, does that only go for Virgin Media customers (if there are any, not sure what the UK ISP world is like)?Second, the all-you-can-download idea sounds reasonable.
If the catalog is extensive enough (including classical), and it truly is DRM-free and platform-agnostic, I could actually see myself using this.
They had better make sure the file metadata is good (a large collection with good metadata is worth paying for), and it'd be nice if they had something like iTune's "Genius" to find things you might like based on your current collection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345255</id>
	<title>So you're watching what I do on the internet?</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1245185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>See, this is the most basic problem with all these schemes--it assumes the ISP has the right to monitor what you're doing with your internet connection.<br><br>Can the phone company do that?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , this is the most basic problem with all these schemes--it assumes the ISP has the right to monitor what you 're doing with your internet connection.Can the phone company do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, this is the most basic problem with all these schemes--it assumes the ISP has the right to monitor what you're doing with your internet connection.Can the phone company do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345221</id>
	<title>Re:Net Neutrality implications?</title>
	<author>smithberry</author>
	<datestamp>1245184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?</p></div><p>No, they don't have a monopoly. I use Virgin for my broadband but I could use BT or any number of other ISPs. If I don't like what they offer I can easily go elsewhere (although because of the distance from the exchange my cable broadband is way faster than anything coming down the BT line at present).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly ? No , they do n't have a monopoly .
I use Virgin for my broadband but I could use BT or any number of other ISPs .
If I do n't like what they offer I can easily go elsewhere ( although because of the distance from the exchange my cable broadband is way faster than anything coming down the BT line at present ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Is it like America across the pond where many municipalities allow broadband providers a legal monopoly?No, they don't have a monopoly.
I use Virgin for my broadband but I could use BT or any number of other ISPs.
If I don't like what they offer I can easily go elsewhere (although because of the distance from the exchange my cable broadband is way faster than anything coming down the BT line at present).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345899</id>
	<title>Re:I live in England...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1245152760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php" title="ispreview.co.uk">Let me help you choose a competitor</a> [ispreview.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me help you choose a competitor [ ispreview.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me help you choose a competitor [ispreview.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341709</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28367675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341833
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1940201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28367675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343247
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345453
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346717
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342177
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342343
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341833
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344529
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342111
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341989
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341701
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28347771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346257
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28342277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28344653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28345671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28346267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1940201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28341969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1940201.28343057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
