<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_08_1339224</id>
	<title>Pandora Stabilizes, No Longer Completely Free</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247063160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>AbyssWyrm writes <i>"Yesterday, Pandora founder Tim Westergren announced that the music service was on safe ground once again, but <a href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/07/soundexchange-cuts-deal-on-music-webcasting-rates.ars">will no longer be free for all users</a>. Instead, it will be really cheap &mdash; for those with a free account, there will be a cap of 40 hours per month, and a user may pay a one-time fee of $0.99 to resume unlimited listening to music for a month.  According to the blog entry, <a href="http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/">this will affect the top 10\% of listeners</a>. Certainly not a bad deal considering the price, and I suspect that Pandora is one of few free internet resources whose users are loyal enough to pay a small fee to keep it afloat. Pandora's future had been uncertain ever since the <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/04/0930245&amp;tid=141">royalty rates for internet radio were increased</a> in 2007."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>AbyssWyrm writes " Yesterday , Pandora founder Tim Westergren announced that the music service was on safe ground once again , but will no longer be free for all users .
Instead , it will be really cheap    for those with a free account , there will be a cap of 40 hours per month , and a user may pay a one-time fee of $ 0.99 to resume unlimited listening to music for a month .
According to the blog entry , this will affect the top 10 \ % of listeners .
Certainly not a bad deal considering the price , and I suspect that Pandora is one of few free internet resources whose users are loyal enough to pay a small fee to keep it afloat .
Pandora 's future had been uncertain ever since the royalty rates for internet radio were increased in 2007 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AbyssWyrm writes "Yesterday, Pandora founder Tim Westergren announced that the music service was on safe ground once again, but will no longer be free for all users.
Instead, it will be really cheap — for those with a free account, there will be a cap of 40 hours per month, and a user may pay a one-time fee of $0.99 to resume unlimited listening to music for a month.
According to the blog entry, this will affect the top 10\% of listeners.
Certainly not a bad deal considering the price, and I suspect that Pandora is one of few free internet resources whose users are loyal enough to pay a small fee to keep it afloat.
Pandora's future had been uncertain ever since the royalty rates for internet radio were increased in 2007.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622515</id>
	<title>Re:Ads &amp; paid use</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1247068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's $3/month with no ads, higher quality streams, and unlimited use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's $ 3/month with no ads , higher quality streams , and unlimited use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's $3/month with no ads, higher quality streams, and unlimited use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623281</id>
	<title>Re:Skip as many songs as we want?</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1247071620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Easy fix, be less picky</p></div><p>If I was a less picky, I wouldn't need Pandora, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy fix , be less pickyIf I was a less picky , I would n't need Pandora , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy fix, be less pickyIf I was a less picky, I wouldn't need Pandora, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622741</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1247069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pre-paid card.</p><p>Card with a low limit.</p><p>You don't exactly have to use your Black AMEX for Pandora if you're <i>that</i> worried about it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pre-paid card.Card with a low limit.You do n't exactly have to use your Black AMEX for Pandora if you 're that worried about it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pre-paid card.Card with a low limit.You don't exactly have to use your Black AMEX for Pandora if you're that worried about it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622189</id>
	<title>Re:Ads &amp; paid use</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1247067840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because ad supported doesn't actually <em>work</em> for any decent-sized service.</p><p>TANSTAAFL. So suck it up and pay something if you enjoy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because ad supported does n't actually work for any decent-sized service.TANSTAAFL .
So suck it up and pay something if you enjoy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because ad supported doesn't actually work for any decent-sized service.TANSTAAFL.
So suck it up and pay something if you enjoy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623121</id>
	<title>Re:Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>Temposs</author>
	<datestamp>1247071020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I imagine the 40 hour cap approaches some limit in the advertising in which the advertisements become less effective, and the advertisers are not willing to pay the same rate. I'll bet the advertisers are willing to pay more to have an advertisement come on right when a user logs onto Pandora, but the longer you're logged in perhaps you're less likely to click on an ad or be affected by an ad, because you're just listening to music(or you left the room). So, Pandora probably calculated a threshold at which it becomes unprofitable to have you keep listening for free because the advertising rates are lower at that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I imagine the 40 hour cap approaches some limit in the advertising in which the advertisements become less effective , and the advertisers are not willing to pay the same rate .
I 'll bet the advertisers are willing to pay more to have an advertisement come on right when a user logs onto Pandora , but the longer you 're logged in perhaps you 're less likely to click on an ad or be affected by an ad , because you 're just listening to music ( or you left the room ) .
So , Pandora probably calculated a threshold at which it becomes unprofitable to have you keep listening for free because the advertising rates are lower at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I imagine the 40 hour cap approaches some limit in the advertising in which the advertisements become less effective, and the advertisers are not willing to pay the same rate.
I'll bet the advertisers are willing to pay more to have an advertisement come on right when a user logs onto Pandora, but the longer you're logged in perhaps you're less likely to click on an ad or be affected by an ad, because you're just listening to music(or you left the room).
So, Pandora probably calculated a threshold at which it becomes unprofitable to have you keep listening for free because the advertising rates are lower at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627753</id>
	<title>Bah</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1247044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me know when it stops pretending that national borders are meaningfull on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me know when it stops pretending that national borders are meaningfull on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me know when it stops pretending that national borders are meaningfull on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622263</id>
	<title>Cost per transaction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A thought about this. I know that the rates charged by credit card companies to process a transaction tend to be very high. Does anyone know how the pricing structure works?

How much of the final transaction will actually be paid to Pandora?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A thought about this .
I know that the rates charged by credit card companies to process a transaction tend to be very high .
Does anyone know how the pricing structure works ?
How much of the final transaction will actually be paid to Pandora ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A thought about this.
I know that the rates charged by credit card companies to process a transaction tend to be very high.
Does anyone know how the pricing structure works?
How much of the final transaction will actually be paid to Pandora?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622359</id>
	<title>e-mail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My friend got a e-mail from pandora saying she was in their top 10\% of listeners.<br> <br>
She said they "let [her] down easy" and gave her alternative "solutions" to deal with capped listening times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend got a e-mail from pandora saying she was in their top 10 \ % of listeners .
She said they " let [ her ] down easy " and gave her alternative " solutions " to deal with capped listening times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend got a e-mail from pandora saying she was in their top 10\% of listeners.
She said they "let [her] down easy" and gave her alternative "solutions" to deal with capped listening times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625699</id>
	<title>Re:Skip as many songs as we want?</title>
	<author>DrGamez</author>
	<datestamp>1247080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you pay, are you still forced to listen to music you don't like?
One of the reasons I never used Pandora was that unless I made a new playlist, I couldn't skip songs after a little while.</p></div><p>Pandora may not be the best music solution for you then. Every so often I'll get a song that makes me stop, tab over and hit next, but even some of the more questionable picks will get me to listen through it - I mean the great Pandora overlord picked it, I have to at least see why!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you pay , are you still forced to listen to music you do n't like ?
One of the reasons I never used Pandora was that unless I made a new playlist , I could n't skip songs after a little while.Pandora may not be the best music solution for you then .
Every so often I 'll get a song that makes me stop , tab over and hit next , but even some of the more questionable picks will get me to listen through it - I mean the great Pandora overlord picked it , I have to at least see why !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you pay, are you still forced to listen to music you don't like?
One of the reasons I never used Pandora was that unless I made a new playlist, I couldn't skip songs after a little while.Pandora may not be the best music solution for you then.
Every so often I'll get a song that makes me stop, tab over and hit next, but even some of the more questionable picks will get me to listen through it - I mean the great Pandora overlord picked it, I have to at least see why!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622657</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technically, you don't have the right to download the songs off a p2p network.  Practically speaking, it shouldn't make a difference if you own a copy of the CD, but realistically, that's not what's happening on those networks in most cases.  In terms of backup rights, the laws are woefully outdated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , you do n't have the right to download the songs off a p2p network .
Practically speaking , it should n't make a difference if you own a copy of the CD , but realistically , that 's not what 's happening on those networks in most cases .
In terms of backup rights , the laws are woefully outdated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, you don't have the right to download the songs off a p2p network.
Practically speaking, it shouldn't make a difference if you own a copy of the CD, but realistically, that's not what's happening on those networks in most cases.
In terms of backup rights, the laws are woefully outdated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623561</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a credit card number is compromised the holder <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre04.shtm" title="ftc.gov">has no liability for any fraudulent charges incurred</a> [ftc.gov]. Just check your statements monthly, like when you pay it, and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. This gives incentive for the CC companies to have good security measures in place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a credit card number is compromised the holder has no liability for any fraudulent charges incurred [ ftc.gov ] .
Just check your statements monthly , like when you pay it , and you have absolutely nothing to worry about .
This gives incentive for the CC companies to have good security measures in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a credit card number is compromised the holder has no liability for any fraudulent charges incurred [ftc.gov].
Just check your statements monthly, like when you pay it, and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
This gives incentive for the CC companies to have good security measures in place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28632103</id>
	<title>Re:One time fee?</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247071320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a one time fee for a limited time.</p><p>Think Starbucks.  The price you pay for a cup of coffee is a one time fee.  There will not be recurring fees for that cup of coffee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a one time fee for a limited time.Think Starbucks .
The price you pay for a cup of coffee is a one time fee .
There will not be recurring fees for that cup of coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a one time fee for a limited time.Think Starbucks.
The price you pay for a cup of coffee is a one time fee.
There will not be recurring fees for that cup of coffee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622335</id>
	<title>Re:Ads &amp; paid use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it that we have to pay for a service that is ad based too? It might start with $0.99/month. Before you know it, it will be $5/month.. etc.</p></div><p>**The following is not a shameless plug, but it sure as shit reads like one.**</p><p>Why not just upgrade to their 'Pandora One' subscription plan for $36/year ($3/month)? It eliminates ads entirely, includes unlimited listening, higher-quality 192 kbps streams, and some other random stuff. Doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that we have to pay for a service that is ad based too ?
It might start with $ 0.99/month .
Before you know it , it will be $ 5/month. .
etc. * * The following is not a shameless plug , but it sure as shit reads like one .
* * Why not just upgrade to their 'Pandora One ' subscription plan for $ 36/year ( $ 3/month ) ?
It eliminates ads entirely , includes unlimited listening , higher-quality 192 kbps streams , and some other random stuff .
Does n't seem like a bad deal to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that we have to pay for a service that is ad based too?
It might start with $0.99/month.
Before you know it, it will be $5/month..
etc.**The following is not a shameless plug, but it sure as shit reads like one.
**Why not just upgrade to their 'Pandora One' subscription plan for $36/year ($3/month)?
It eliminates ads entirely, includes unlimited listening, higher-quality 192 kbps streams, and some other random stuff.
Doesn't seem like a bad deal to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623305</id>
	<title>Re:price is right, now how do I hand them a dollar</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1247071680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use a <a href="http://blogs.consumerreports.org/electronics/2008/12/you-better-watc.html" title="consumerreports.org">Virtual Credit Card</a> [consumerreports.org] number, which is a temporary credit card which is tied to your main CC account. I believe both Visa and Mastercard offer these, or it's issued by the bank who issued your credit card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use a Virtual Credit Card [ consumerreports.org ] number , which is a temporary credit card which is tied to your main CC account .
I believe both Visa and Mastercard offer these , or it 's issued by the bank who issued your credit card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use a Virtual Credit Card [consumerreports.org] number, which is a temporary credit card which is tied to your main CC account.
I believe both Visa and Mastercard offer these, or it's issued by the bank who issued your credit card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622633</id>
	<title>microPayPal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the problem with the micropayments is that the CC companies charge enough for a processing fee that the micropayments are really as micro as they could be. If the CC company charges 0.50 for the transaction, then this really could be a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 per month thing.... what you need is some service which can agregate all the things you want to pay via micropayment type systems (podcasts or blogs that you contribute for, pandora or other music services, etc) and then tack on a small fee for doing this and then pay the "subscriptions" minus the credit card fee, basically do what they do now, but be less greedy.... Why pay $1 to each of 10 services per month when the credit card companies take half that in transaction fees. Why not pay microPayPal or whoever, $7 and let them keep $2, but contribute the $0.50 to each of those 10 services. Pandora or whoever would get the same amount of money in the end, a single aggregation service that handles this could make a nice chunk on the 20\% surcharge, and the consumer would save 30\% in the end. If they are doing this for enough services like Pandora, they would even recognize savings by the fact that THEY make a single $10,000 payment to Pandora each month for the 20,000 people using the service and still only pay the single payment processing fee, even if they pay by credit card. Sounds like a pretty simple business to start, it would only be an issue of getting enough "customers" who would trust this middleman service, which is why it would be perfect grounds for GoogleCheckout or PayPal to jump on now and claim the segment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the problem with the micropayments is that the CC companies charge enough for a processing fee that the micropayments are really as micro as they could be .
If the CC company charges 0.50 for the transaction , then this really could be a .50 per month thing.... what you need is some service which can agregate all the things you want to pay via micropayment type systems ( podcasts or blogs that you contribute for , pandora or other music services , etc ) and then tack on a small fee for doing this and then pay the " subscriptions " minus the credit card fee , basically do what they do now , but be less greedy.... Why pay $ 1 to each of 10 services per month when the credit card companies take half that in transaction fees .
Why not pay microPayPal or whoever , $ 7 and let them keep $ 2 , but contribute the $ 0.50 to each of those 10 services .
Pandora or whoever would get the same amount of money in the end , a single aggregation service that handles this could make a nice chunk on the 20 \ % surcharge , and the consumer would save 30 \ % in the end .
If they are doing this for enough services like Pandora , they would even recognize savings by the fact that THEY make a single $ 10,000 payment to Pandora each month for the 20,000 people using the service and still only pay the single payment processing fee , even if they pay by credit card .
Sounds like a pretty simple business to start , it would only be an issue of getting enough " customers " who would trust this middleman service , which is why it would be perfect grounds for GoogleCheckout or PayPal to jump on now and claim the segment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the problem with the micropayments is that the CC companies charge enough for a processing fee that the micropayments are really as micro as they could be.
If the CC company charges 0.50 for the transaction, then this really could be a .50 per month thing.... what you need is some service which can agregate all the things you want to pay via micropayment type systems (podcasts or blogs that you contribute for, pandora or other music services, etc) and then tack on a small fee for doing this and then pay the "subscriptions" minus the credit card fee, basically do what they do now, but be less greedy.... Why pay $1 to each of 10 services per month when the credit card companies take half that in transaction fees.
Why not pay microPayPal or whoever, $7 and let them keep $2, but contribute the $0.50 to each of those 10 services.
Pandora or whoever would get the same amount of money in the end, a single aggregation service that handles this could make a nice chunk on the 20\% surcharge, and the consumer would save 30\% in the end.
If they are doing this for enough services like Pandora, they would even recognize savings by the fact that THEY make a single $10,000 payment to Pandora each month for the 20,000 people using the service and still only pay the single payment processing fee, even if they pay by credit card.
Sounds like a pretty simple business to start, it would only be an issue of getting enough "customers" who would trust this middleman service, which is why it would be perfect grounds for GoogleCheckout or PayPal to jump on now and claim the segment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624081</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1247074620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like the one about "dream compilation" CDs. It's like they're acknowledging that they're making you buy 19 crap songs with each good one in an album.</p></div><p>I did buy a "dream compilation" CD. It was all the James Bond title themes. I bought it from Best Buy. The track for "From Russia With Love" has an audible audio watermark sounding like a sped-up sample of someone saying something I can't make out. I haven't been able to isolate it and slow it down to figure out what it's saying yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the one about " dream compilation " CDs .
It 's like they 're acknowledging that they 're making you buy 19 crap songs with each good one in an album.I did buy a " dream compilation " CD .
It was all the James Bond title themes .
I bought it from Best Buy .
The track for " From Russia With Love " has an audible audio watermark sounding like a sped-up sample of someone saying something I ca n't make out .
I have n't been able to isolate it and slow it down to figure out what it 's saying yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the one about "dream compilation" CDs.
It's like they're acknowledging that they're making you buy 19 crap songs with each good one in an album.I did buy a "dream compilation" CD.
It was all the James Bond title themes.
I bought it from Best Buy.
The track for "From Russia With Love" has an audible audio watermark sounding like a sped-up sample of someone saying something I can't make out.
I haven't been able to isolate it and slow it down to figure out what it's saying yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624969</id>
	<title>Re:lower royalty rates negotiated</title>
	<author>grahamd0</author>
	<datestamp>1247077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; 25\% of revenue or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.14 cents/song (whichever is greater)</p><p>I would love to hear the logic behind this structuring. Why is 25\% of revenue OK for large stations, but for small stations with low revenue, they must pay a fixed fee?</p></div><p>Sure thing:</p><p>
<tt>
var a = PERCENTAGE\_RATE;<br>
var b = FIXED\_FEE;<br>
<br>
if ( a &gt; b ) {<br>
collect(a);<br>
} else {<br>
collect(b);<br>
}
</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 25 \ % of revenue or .14 cents/song ( whichever is greater ) I would love to hear the logic behind this structuring .
Why is 25 \ % of revenue OK for large stations , but for small stations with low revenue , they must pay a fixed fee ? Sure thing : var a = PERCENTAGE \ _RATE ; var b = FIXED \ _FEE ; if ( a &gt; b ) { collect ( a ) ; } else { collect ( b ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 25\% of revenue or .14 cents/song (whichever is greater)I would love to hear the logic behind this structuring.
Why is 25\% of revenue OK for large stations, but for small stations with low revenue, they must pay a fixed fee?Sure thing:

var a = PERCENTAGE\_RATE;
var b = FIXED\_FEE;

if ( a &gt; b ) {
collect(a);
} else {
collect(b);
}

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622311</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Does anyone actually believe this stuff?</p></div></blockquote><p>Sounds like someone's never heard a CD burnt from 128kbps MP3's.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent .
... Does anyone actually believe this stuff ? Sounds like someone 's never heard a CD burnt from 128kbps MP3 's .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.
... Does anyone actually believe this stuff?Sounds like someone's never heard a CD burnt from 128kbps MP3's.
      --- Mr. DOS
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624373</id>
	<title>Napster?</title>
	<author>jj00</author>
	<datestamp>1247075580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Napster is only $5/month.  No ads, unlimited listening, and I can choose which songs I want to play.
<br> <br>
I like Pandora, but I'd rather have a couple extra audio ads inserted in for the free version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Napster is only $ 5/month .
No ads , unlimited listening , and I can choose which songs I want to play .
I like Pandora , but I 'd rather have a couple extra audio ads inserted in for the free version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Napster is only $5/month.
No ads, unlimited listening, and I can choose which songs I want to play.
I like Pandora, but I'd rather have a couple extra audio ads inserted in for the free version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622773</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>radish</author>
	<datestamp>1247069760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too Good To Be True == 200 tracks for $2. They didn't sell that because they don't want to give stuff away so cheaply. How is that hard to understand?</p><blockquote><div><p>It is a freaking digital copy, it is the exact same quality</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe, maybe not. I've never heard a pirate CD, but I've seen plenty of pirate DVDs. Some are direct digital copies of the original and look great, plenty are just burned torrent downloads (and so have compression artifacts everywhere). Some are screen cams. I'm sure the same holds for audio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too Good To Be True = = 200 tracks for $ 2 .
They did n't sell that because they do n't want to give stuff away so cheaply .
How is that hard to understand ? It is a freaking digital copy , it is the exact same qualityMaybe , maybe not .
I 've never heard a pirate CD , but I 've seen plenty of pirate DVDs .
Some are direct digital copies of the original and look great , plenty are just burned torrent downloads ( and so have compression artifacts everywhere ) .
Some are screen cams .
I 'm sure the same holds for audio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too Good To Be True == 200 tracks for $2.
They didn't sell that because they don't want to give stuff away so cheaply.
How is that hard to understand?It is a freaking digital copy, it is the exact same qualityMaybe, maybe not.
I've never heard a pirate CD, but I've seen plenty of pirate DVDs.
Some are direct digital copies of the original and look great, plenty are just burned torrent downloads (and so have compression artifacts everywhere).
Some are screen cams.
I'm sure the same holds for audio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622393</id>
	<title>Re:Skip as many songs as we want?</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1247068560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy fix, be less picky or create a better station.  I haven't had to skip a song in months (outside giving an occasional one a thumbs down).  Pandora has to pay for the song whether or not you listen to the whole thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy fix , be less picky or create a better station .
I have n't had to skip a song in months ( outside giving an occasional one a thumbs down ) .
Pandora has to pay for the song whether or not you listen to the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy fix, be less picky or create a better station.
I haven't had to skip a song in months (outside giving an occasional one a thumbs down).
Pandora has to pay for the song whether or not you listen to the whole thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626159</id>
	<title>Re:Skip as many songs as we want?</title>
	<author>Daloten</author>
	<datestamp>1247081640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to their FAQ, skips will still be limited to 6 per hour, even on the subscription model.

One of the biggest things I don't like about Pandora - and I LIKE a lot about it - is that you can't really make a station how you'd like. You can't make a station that only plays Slim Whitman, for example. You can't replay a song you just heard. You can't specify it to play exactly a certain song when you want to hear it. If Pandora allows us to do those things, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat. Till then, I feel they're charging for too little control over what I want to listen to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to their FAQ , skips will still be limited to 6 per hour , even on the subscription model .
One of the biggest things I do n't like about Pandora - and I LIKE a lot about it - is that you ca n't really make a station how you 'd like .
You ca n't make a station that only plays Slim Whitman , for example .
You ca n't replay a song you just heard .
You ca n't specify it to play exactly a certain song when you want to hear it .
If Pandora allows us to do those things , I 'd subscribe in a heartbeat .
Till then , I feel they 're charging for too little control over what I want to listen to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to their FAQ, skips will still be limited to 6 per hour, even on the subscription model.
One of the biggest things I don't like about Pandora - and I LIKE a lot about it - is that you can't really make a station how you'd like.
You can't make a station that only plays Slim Whitman, for example.
You can't replay a song you just heard.
You can't specify it to play exactly a certain song when you want to hear it.
If Pandora allows us to do those things, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat.
Till then, I feel they're charging for too little control over what I want to listen to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623863</id>
	<title>Re:Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1247073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use and profit are positively correlated up to a certain point, after which the increased cost of bandwidth and licensing are no longer offset by increased revenue.  Pandora has determined that happens after forty hours a month.  I would imagine this has to do with Pandora's revenue coming at least partly from purchases or click-throughs, as the profitability from that would diminish the longer a user listened to Pandora.  It also probably means that advertising on the main page is sold per user, per page view, or at a flat rate rather than being based on listening/viewing time.</p><p>A somewhat useful analogy would be the Neflix business model, where customers become unprofitable if they fully utilize the service (although major differences exist of course).  It's difficult to know the exact details of their business model without hearing from somebody inside the company, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use and profit are positively correlated up to a certain point , after which the increased cost of bandwidth and licensing are no longer offset by increased revenue .
Pandora has determined that happens after forty hours a month .
I would imagine this has to do with Pandora 's revenue coming at least partly from purchases or click-throughs , as the profitability from that would diminish the longer a user listened to Pandora .
It also probably means that advertising on the main page is sold per user , per page view , or at a flat rate rather than being based on listening/viewing time.A somewhat useful analogy would be the Neflix business model , where customers become unprofitable if they fully utilize the service ( although major differences exist of course ) .
It 's difficult to know the exact details of their business model without hearing from somebody inside the company , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use and profit are positively correlated up to a certain point, after which the increased cost of bandwidth and licensing are no longer offset by increased revenue.
Pandora has determined that happens after forty hours a month.
I would imagine this has to do with Pandora's revenue coming at least partly from purchases or click-throughs, as the profitability from that would diminish the longer a user listened to Pandora.
It also probably means that advertising on the main page is sold per user, per page view, or at a flat rate rather than being based on listening/viewing time.A somewhat useful analogy would be the Neflix business model, where customers become unprofitable if they fully utilize the service (although major differences exist of course).
It's difficult to know the exact details of their business model without hearing from somebody inside the company, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622483</id>
	<title>Re:Ads &amp; paid use</title>
	<author>loutr</author>
	<datestamp>1247068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's because ad supported doesn't actually <em>work</em> for any decent-sized service.</p></div><p>"Traditionnal" web ads that users have to click for them to generate revenue for the site may not work, but I think advertisers are (or will be) paying good money for one of Spotify's audio ads (in between songs, just like on radio). And they are more annoying than blockable text/image/flash ads, so they are a "better" insentive for the user to suscribe to the service (or to switch service, but if they manage to stay ahead of the competition most users will pay or continue waiting through the ads I guess).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because ad supported does n't actually work for any decent-sized service .
" Traditionnal " web ads that users have to click for them to generate revenue for the site may not work , but I think advertisers are ( or will be ) paying good money for one of Spotify 's audio ads ( in between songs , just like on radio ) .
And they are more annoying than blockable text/image/flash ads , so they are a " better " insentive for the user to suscribe to the service ( or to switch service , but if they manage to stay ahead of the competition most users will pay or continue waiting through the ads I guess ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because ad supported doesn't actually work for any decent-sized service.
"Traditionnal" web ads that users have to click for them to generate revenue for the site may not work, but I think advertisers are (or will be) paying good money for one of Spotify's audio ads (in between songs, just like on radio).
And they are more annoying than blockable text/image/flash ads, so they are a "better" insentive for the user to suscribe to the service (or to switch service, but if they manage to stay ahead of the competition most users will pay or continue waiting through the ads I guess).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625977</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>matt20102</author>
	<datestamp>1247081100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why a micropayment economy will never take off.  Here's a scenario:  as more and more of these micropayment services take off, people will become more and more comfortable with the idea of giving this information to anyone that will ask.  Soon enough, two things will happen:  1) There will be rampant scamming with unscrupulous individuals setting up dubious sites just to scam card numbers.  2) With more micropayment sites, there will be more and more databases, server logs, and similar records which may contain such information.   Although the majority of these will be fairly safe- many, many others will not.   3) People, not realizing that a $0.99 charge is actually $0.99 + time + aggravation, will attempt to monetize everything!  4) As a result of 3, It will be nearly impossible to use the web for anything more than just trivial tasks for those people who choose not to possess credit cards.  This will sweep into the economy at large.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why a micropayment economy will never take off .
Here 's a scenario : as more and more of these micropayment services take off , people will become more and more comfortable with the idea of giving this information to anyone that will ask .
Soon enough , two things will happen : 1 ) There will be rampant scamming with unscrupulous individuals setting up dubious sites just to scam card numbers .
2 ) With more micropayment sites , there will be more and more databases , server logs , and similar records which may contain such information .
Although the majority of these will be fairly safe- many , many others will not .
3 ) People , not realizing that a $ 0.99 charge is actually $ 0.99 + time + aggravation , will attempt to monetize everything !
4 ) As a result of 3 , It will be nearly impossible to use the web for anything more than just trivial tasks for those people who choose not to possess credit cards .
This will sweep into the economy at large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why a micropayment economy will never take off.
Here's a scenario:  as more and more of these micropayment services take off, people will become more and more comfortable with the idea of giving this information to anyone that will ask.
Soon enough, two things will happen:  1) There will be rampant scamming with unscrupulous individuals setting up dubious sites just to scam card numbers.
2) With more micropayment sites, there will be more and more databases, server logs, and similar records which may contain such information.
Although the majority of these will be fairly safe- many, many others will not.
3) People, not realizing that a $0.99 charge is actually $0.99 + time + aggravation, will attempt to monetize everything!
4) As a result of 3, It will be nearly impossible to use the web for anything more than just trivial tasks for those people who choose not to possess credit cards.
This will sweep into the economy at large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628289</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1247047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure the same holds for audio.</p></div><p>Not for albums. The worst it gets is that someone will leak an album before it's mastered or the final mix. But since the mixing is part of the project, having an alternate mix can be enlightening.</p><p>Concert bootlegs, on the other hand, do have that issue. But very often a bootleg is the only way to get a recording of that particular show, depending on whether or not the artist sanctions audience tapers. And for some artists it's the only way to get a live recording, since they might not have released any.</p><p>(for the record, I pay for my music)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the same holds for audio.Not for albums .
The worst it gets is that someone will leak an album before it 's mastered or the final mix .
But since the mixing is part of the project , having an alternate mix can be enlightening.Concert bootlegs , on the other hand , do have that issue .
But very often a bootleg is the only way to get a recording of that particular show , depending on whether or not the artist sanctions audience tapers .
And for some artists it 's the only way to get a live recording , since they might not have released any .
( for the record , I pay for my music )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the same holds for audio.Not for albums.
The worst it gets is that someone will leak an album before it's mastered or the final mix.
But since the mixing is part of the project, having an alternate mix can be enlightening.Concert bootlegs, on the other hand, do have that issue.
But very often a bootleg is the only way to get a recording of that particular show, depending on whether or not the artist sanctions audience tapers.
And for some artists it's the only way to get a live recording, since they might not have released any.
(for the record, I pay for my music)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627893</id>
	<title>Re:Say what again</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1247045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's similar to an ISP -- "Unlimited bandwidth! (so far as 10GB/month. After that, it stops being unlimited and starts being a 10GB cap with massive overage charges)", only in this case it's "Unlimited listening time! (for one month)".

</p><p>I'm pretty sure that advertising "unlimited up to a point" should be illegal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's similar to an ISP -- " Unlimited bandwidth !
( so far as 10GB/month .
After that , it stops being unlimited and starts being a 10GB cap with massive overage charges ) " , only in this case it 's " Unlimited listening time !
( for one month ) " .
I 'm pretty sure that advertising " unlimited up to a point " should be illegal : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's similar to an ISP -- "Unlimited bandwidth!
(so far as 10GB/month.
After that, it stops being unlimited and starts being a 10GB cap with massive overage charges)", only in this case it's "Unlimited listening time!
(for one month)".
I'm pretty sure that advertising "unlimited up to a point" should be illegal :-/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625023</id>
	<title>Re:Slacker?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247077740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tried it.<br>Don't like the audio ads.<br>Pandora ads are just on the screen and those are blocked with Adblock Plus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tried it.Do n't like the audio ads.Pandora ads are just on the screen and those are blocked with Adblock Plus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tried it.Don't like the audio ads.Pandora ads are just on the screen and those are blocked with Adblock Plus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622763</id>
	<title>European users</title>
	<author>siilarsi</author>
	<datestamp>1247069760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It's *still* only available for US citizens. </b>
<div><p>Of course this is only a correction to the article if you belive that this still means Pandora is available to all the world, as some US citizens seem to belive... Sorry for spilling my guts like this but I'm profoundly tired of that particular issue, and I realise not everyone in the US  like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's * still * only available for US citizens .
Of course this is only a correction to the article if you belive that this still means Pandora is available to all the world , as some US citizens seem to belive... Sorry for spilling my guts like this but I 'm profoundly tired of that particular issue , and I realise not everyone in the US like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's *still* only available for US citizens.
Of course this is only a correction to the article if you belive that this still means Pandora is available to all the world, as some US citizens seem to belive... Sorry for spilling my guts like this but I'm profoundly tired of that particular issue, and I realise not everyone in the US  like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622885</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1247070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RF version of Pandora?  Cool!  What's the frequency?  And how to I create new stations and rate the songs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RF version of Pandora ?
Cool ! What 's the frequency ?
And how to I create new stations and rate the songs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RF version of Pandora?
Cool!  What's the frequency?
And how to I create new stations and rate the songs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28653829</id>
	<title>So what people will do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247257740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is create 4 accts, 1 for each week of the month?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is create 4 accts , 1 for each week of the month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is create 4 accts, 1 for each week of the month?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622563</id>
	<title>Re:Never == Next Month?</title>
	<author>Kesch</author>
	<datestamp>1247069040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>English failing? The fee is one-time since it is non-recurring. And it's not (unlimited)  (for one month). It's (unlimited for one month)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>English failing ?
The fee is one-time since it is non-recurring .
And it 's not ( unlimited ) ( for one month ) .
It 's ( unlimited for one month )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English failing?
The fee is one-time since it is non-recurring.
And it's not (unlimited)  (for one month).
It's (unlimited for one month)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627497</id>
	<title>I believe the word is "meh"</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1247086620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've personally found Pandora to be underwhelming.  It just reminds me of the old saying, "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself," which seems to be doubly true for anything that's a matter of taste.  Pandora tries to quantify taste, but the problem is that taste is not quantifiable.</p><p>When presented with new music, I'll see something like "we picked this song because we noticed that you like heavy guitar riffs and a pulsing bass drum."  Which is about as meaningless as saying "we picked this match for you because she has great breasts."  While I may strongly favor women who fall into that category, it doesn't narrow things down enough, while simultaneously presuming I don't like variety by excluding women with a great smile and a sense of humor.  Finding music you like is no different.. although fortunately music pretty much never gets jealous when you listen to other music, or decides it's not interested, or bleeds for a week without dying.  Anyway, the only way I've seen to get variety out of Pandora is to create multiple "stations", and if I have to constantly switch "stations" throughout a listening experience, I might as well create the playlists myself or just throw in a few CDs and explore each of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've personally found Pandora to be underwhelming .
It just reminds me of the old saying , " if you want something done right you have to do it yourself , " which seems to be doubly true for anything that 's a matter of taste .
Pandora tries to quantify taste , but the problem is that taste is not quantifiable.When presented with new music , I 'll see something like " we picked this song because we noticed that you like heavy guitar riffs and a pulsing bass drum .
" Which is about as meaningless as saying " we picked this match for you because she has great breasts .
" While I may strongly favor women who fall into that category , it does n't narrow things down enough , while simultaneously presuming I do n't like variety by excluding women with a great smile and a sense of humor .
Finding music you like is no different.. although fortunately music pretty much never gets jealous when you listen to other music , or decides it 's not interested , or bleeds for a week without dying .
Anyway , the only way I 've seen to get variety out of Pandora is to create multiple " stations " , and if I have to constantly switch " stations " throughout a listening experience , I might as well create the playlists myself or just throw in a few CDs and explore each of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've personally found Pandora to be underwhelming.
It just reminds me of the old saying, "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself," which seems to be doubly true for anything that's a matter of taste.
Pandora tries to quantify taste, but the problem is that taste is not quantifiable.When presented with new music, I'll see something like "we picked this song because we noticed that you like heavy guitar riffs and a pulsing bass drum.
"  Which is about as meaningless as saying "we picked this match for you because she has great breasts.
"  While I may strongly favor women who fall into that category, it doesn't narrow things down enough, while simultaneously presuming I don't like variety by excluding women with a great smile and a sense of humor.
Finding music you like is no different.. although fortunately music pretty much never gets jealous when you listen to other music, or decides it's not interested, or bleeds for a week without dying.
Anyway, the only way I've seen to get variety out of Pandora is to create multiple "stations", and if I have to constantly switch "stations" throughout a listening experience, I might as well create the playlists myself or just throw in a few CDs and explore each of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623489</id>
	<title>Re:Slacker?</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1247072400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It may be. But you are missing the whole point of Pandora. I, for one, have found it to be great service to explore music - to find hidden gems I would not have found otherwise - based on what kind of music <i>I</i> like, not <i>somebody else</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be .
But you are missing the whole point of Pandora .
I , for one , have found it to be great service to explore music - to find hidden gems I would not have found otherwise - based on what kind of music I like , not somebody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be.
But you are missing the whole point of Pandora.
I, for one, have found it to be great service to explore music - to find hidden gems I would not have found otherwise - based on what kind of music I like, not somebody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622875</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1247070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like the one about "dream compilation" CDs. It's like they're acknowledging that they're making you buy 19 crap songs with each good one in an album.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the one about " dream compilation " CDs .
It 's like they 're acknowledging that they 're making you buy 19 crap songs with each good one in an album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the one about "dream compilation" CDs.
It's like they're acknowledging that they're making you buy 19 crap songs with each good one in an album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127</id>
	<title>Skip as many songs as we want?</title>
	<author>TerminaMorte</author>
	<datestamp>1247067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you pay, are you still forced to listen to music you don't like?
<br> <br>
One of the reasons I never used Pandora was that unless I made a new playlist, I couldn't skip songs after a little while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you pay , are you still forced to listen to music you do n't like ?
One of the reasons I never used Pandora was that unless I made a new playlist , I could n't skip songs after a little while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you pay, are you still forced to listen to music you don't like?
One of the reasons I never used Pandora was that unless I made a new playlist, I couldn't skip songs after a little while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28631243</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1247064780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One time <i>per month</i> that you go over 40 hours.</p><p>I'd rather pay $10/yr and be done with it. Except that, I'm Canadian, so that option isn't available to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One time per month that you go over 40 hours.I 'd rather pay $ 10/yr and be done with it .
Except that , I 'm Canadian , so that option is n't available to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One time per month that you go over 40 hours.I'd rather pay $10/yr and be done with it.
Except that, I'm Canadian, so that option isn't available to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622991</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>jank1887</author>
	<datestamp>1247070480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>paypal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>paypal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>paypal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624745</id>
	<title>Not a bad deal...</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1247076780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first saw the headline, I thought "Oh shit - one of the few free music apps that works perfectly and actually has good content is now going to be ruined;" not because I have any objection to paying a fair price for things, but because historically with free music sites/services online, once money becomes involved they change, and usually not for the better.</p><p>However, I find this pricing model pretty appropriate - if you are listening over 40 hours a month, 99 cents is a small price to pay to support the site. This doesn't look to me like a way to exploit their userbase for huge economic gains, rather, it looks like a site doing what they need to do to survive without taking advantage of their user base.</p><p>If they raise it substantially, quickly - I might feel differently, but from what I understand they were having to deal with this seems like a pretty good way to go - managable and fair, and only affecting heavy users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first saw the headline , I thought " Oh shit - one of the few free music apps that works perfectly and actually has good content is now going to be ruined ; " not because I have any objection to paying a fair price for things , but because historically with free music sites/services online , once money becomes involved they change , and usually not for the better.However , I find this pricing model pretty appropriate - if you are listening over 40 hours a month , 99 cents is a small price to pay to support the site .
This does n't look to me like a way to exploit their userbase for huge economic gains , rather , it looks like a site doing what they need to do to survive without taking advantage of their user base.If they raise it substantially , quickly - I might feel differently , but from what I understand they were having to deal with this seems like a pretty good way to go - managable and fair , and only affecting heavy users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first saw the headline, I thought "Oh shit - one of the few free music apps that works perfectly and actually has good content is now going to be ruined;" not because I have any objection to paying a fair price for things, but because historically with free music sites/services online, once money becomes involved they change, and usually not for the better.However, I find this pricing model pretty appropriate - if you are listening over 40 hours a month, 99 cents is a small price to pay to support the site.
This doesn't look to me like a way to exploit their userbase for huge economic gains, rather, it looks like a site doing what they need to do to survive without taking advantage of their user base.If they raise it substantially, quickly - I might feel differently, but from what I understand they were having to deal with this seems like a pretty good way to go - managable and fair, and only affecting heavy users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623245</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Digital copy doesn't necessarily imply that it's as good quality as the original. MP3s certainly aren't, and a lot of the stuff you get on street corners comes from mp3s taken from such craptastic sources as kazaa, possibly even transcoded from another lossy source. They do typically sound shitty. That's why I get all my pirated material in FLAC<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Digital copy does n't necessarily imply that it 's as good quality as the original .
MP3s certainly are n't , and a lot of the stuff you get on street corners comes from mp3s taken from such craptastic sources as kazaa , possibly even transcoded from another lossy source .
They do typically sound shitty .
That 's why I get all my pirated material in FLAC : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Digital copy doesn't necessarily imply that it's as good quality as the original.
MP3s certainly aren't, and a lot of the stuff you get on street corners comes from mp3s taken from such craptastic sources as kazaa, possibly even transcoded from another lossy source.
They do typically sound shitty.
That's why I get all my pirated material in FLAC :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625891</id>
	<title>Re:Slacker?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tried it.<br>Slacker has audio ads.  Pandora does not.<br>Even the visual ads on Pandora are blocked by Adblock Plus.<br>I prefer ad free listening on Pandora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tried it.Slacker has audio ads .
Pandora does not.Even the visual ads on Pandora are blocked by Adblock Plus.I prefer ad free listening on Pandora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tried it.Slacker has audio ads.
Pandora does not.Even the visual ads on Pandora are blocked by Adblock Plus.I prefer ad free listening on Pandora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622333</id>
	<title>time to sign up for another account</title>
	<author>jluxe</author>
	<datestamp>1247068320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose I should sign up for another account for use on my Blackberry, one for my wife, and another one for my home laptop.</p><p>Pandora lets you share your stations with other users, so I wont even lose my new stations.  Although lately I seem to get the same 100 songs over and over, so it's time to create some new stations anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose I should sign up for another account for use on my Blackberry , one for my wife , and another one for my home laptop.Pandora lets you share your stations with other users , so I wont even lose my new stations .
Although lately I seem to get the same 100 songs over and over , so it 's time to create some new stations anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose I should sign up for another account for use on my Blackberry, one for my wife, and another one for my home laptop.Pandora lets you share your stations with other users, so I wont even lose my new stations.
Although lately I seem to get the same 100 songs over and over, so it's time to create some new stations anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469</id>
	<title>price is right, now how do I hand them a dollar</title>
	<author>doas777</author>
	<datestamp>1247068800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My primary concern with low-cost services, is that of transactional security. I don't want to expose my CC to compromise over only 1$. Paypal is just as bad. if I subscribe to 100 1$ services per month, how much does that increase my exposure, vs one transaction for 100$? low cost webservices may be the answer to making money online, but I'm not here so a provider can make a buck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My primary concern with low-cost services , is that of transactional security .
I do n't want to expose my CC to compromise over only 1 $ .
Paypal is just as bad .
if I subscribe to 100 1 $ services per month , how much does that increase my exposure , vs one transaction for 100 $ ?
low cost webservices may be the answer to making money online , but I 'm not here so a provider can make a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My primary concern with low-cost services, is that of transactional security.
I don't want to expose my CC to compromise over only 1$.
Paypal is just as bad.
if I subscribe to 100 1$ services per month, how much does that increase my exposure, vs one transaction for 100$?
low cost webservices may be the answer to making money online, but I'm not here so a provider can make a buck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622197</id>
	<title>One time fee?</title>
	<author>Ambiguous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1247067840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to be a terrible pedant, but if you pay a "one time fee" to get unlimited listening <i>each month</i>, it's not a one-time fee. It's a monthly fee. It just has a very low subscription cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be a terrible pedant , but if you pay a " one time fee " to get unlimited listening each month , it 's not a one-time fee .
It 's a monthly fee .
It just has a very low subscription cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be a terrible pedant, but if you pay a "one time fee" to get unlimited listening each month, it's not a one-time fee.
It's a monthly fee.
It just has a very low subscription cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28688765</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247574600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they don't let you skip more than a few songs an hour even if you have the paid subscription?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they do n't let you skip more than a few songs an hour even if you have the paid subscription ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they don't let you skip more than a few songs an hour even if you have the paid subscription?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622803</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1247069940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Micropayment? Err, pay a year at a time. its 12 bucks. This is just like satellite radio. No one pays monthly, they pay quarterly or annually. Relax dude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Micropayment ?
Err , pay a year at a time .
its 12 bucks .
This is just like satellite radio .
No one pays monthly , they pay quarterly or annually .
Relax dude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micropayment?
Err, pay a year at a time.
its 12 bucks.
This is just like satellite radio.
No one pays monthly, they pay quarterly or annually.
Relax dude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625153</id>
	<title>Re:Say what again</title>
	<author>SmlFreshwaterBuffalo</author>
	<datestamp>1247078160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a monthly fee, but you don't have to sign up for recurring charges. Hence, it's better than a monthly fee. You pay it for months that you want, and don't have to cancel anything for months that you aren't using the service as much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a monthly fee , but you do n't have to sign up for recurring charges .
Hence , it 's better than a monthly fee .
You pay it for months that you want , and do n't have to cancel anything for months that you are n't using the service as much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a monthly fee, but you don't have to sign up for recurring charges.
Hence, it's better than a monthly fee.
You pay it for months that you want, and don't have to cancel anything for months that you aren't using the service as much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627593</id>
	<title>4 years of detailed server logs</title>
	<author>H310iSe</author>
	<datestamp>1247043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one mentioned this jewel yet, you also must keep 4 years of detailed server logs (who listened to what when, etc.) and provide them to the agency managing the royalty payments.  If you don't want to keep and submit detailed logs, you can pay an additional fee to get out of most of this reporting requirement (a 'proxy fee' amount unspecified).</p><p>The $25,000 minimum fee completely closes webcasting to all but large professional players, which is bad for music.  The claim to gross revenues of all activities related to the website makes it impossible for businesses to run webcasts b/c soundsafe will tap into the businesses' gross (bad for web developers).  Even without the $25k minimum the royalty rates are outrageous (coming up on 1 cent per song per listener by 2015 - and 14 cents per song per listener for some types of stations (make your own playlists).</p><p>It used to be music, then it was the music business, now it's just business.  Such a shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one mentioned this jewel yet , you also must keep 4 years of detailed server logs ( who listened to what when , etc .
) and provide them to the agency managing the royalty payments .
If you do n't want to keep and submit detailed logs , you can pay an additional fee to get out of most of this reporting requirement ( a 'proxy fee ' amount unspecified ) .The $ 25,000 minimum fee completely closes webcasting to all but large professional players , which is bad for music .
The claim to gross revenues of all activities related to the website makes it impossible for businesses to run webcasts b/c soundsafe will tap into the businesses ' gross ( bad for web developers ) .
Even without the $ 25k minimum the royalty rates are outrageous ( coming up on 1 cent per song per listener by 2015 - and 14 cents per song per listener for some types of stations ( make your own playlists ) .It used to be music , then it was the music business , now it 's just business .
Such a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one mentioned this jewel yet, you also must keep 4 years of detailed server logs (who listened to what when, etc.
) and provide them to the agency managing the royalty payments.
If you don't want to keep and submit detailed logs, you can pay an additional fee to get out of most of this reporting requirement (a 'proxy fee' amount unspecified).The $25,000 minimum fee completely closes webcasting to all but large professional players, which is bad for music.
The claim to gross revenues of all activities related to the website makes it impossible for businesses to run webcasts b/c soundsafe will tap into the businesses' gross (bad for web developers).
Even without the $25k minimum the royalty rates are outrageous (coming up on 1 cent per song per listener by 2015 - and 14 cents per song per listener for some types of stations (make your own playlists).It used to be music, then it was the music business, now it's just business.
Such a shame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622625</id>
	<title>Last.fm anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.Last.fm does all the stuff Pandora does, and more.  With no ads.  I don't know how they do it, but they do and I listen to it all day @ work.  Oh yeah, it's free too.  Cmon people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.Last.fm does all the stuff Pandora does , and more .
With no ads .
I do n't know how they do it , but they do and I listen to it all day @ work .
Oh yeah , it 's free too .
Cmon people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.Last.fm does all the stuff Pandora does, and more.
With no ads.
I don't know how they do it, but they do and I listen to it all day @ work.
Oh yeah, it's free too.
Cmon people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622585</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radio has been degrading the sound of music for years, speeding up playback slightly to get more commercials in. And yes, MP3s and other compressed formats are good for downloading, but do take some of the sound out of the music. You may not notice this on some cheap computer speakers or earbuds, but on a high end system you might.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radio has been degrading the sound of music for years , speeding up playback slightly to get more commercials in .
And yes , MP3s and other compressed formats are good for downloading , but do take some of the sound out of the music .
You may not notice this on some cheap computer speakers or earbuds , but on a high end system you might .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radio has been degrading the sound of music for years, speeding up playback slightly to get more commercials in.
And yes, MP3s and other compressed formats are good for downloading, but do take some of the sound out of the music.
You may not notice this on some cheap computer speakers or earbuds, but on a high end system you might.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622495</id>
	<title>Re:Cost per transaction?</title>
	<author>catxk</author>
	<datestamp>1247068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Sweden, the charge is around $0.4 per transaction. I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Sweden , the charge is around $ 0.4 per transaction .
I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Sweden, the charge is around $0.4 per transaction.
I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622111</id>
	<title>I wish...</title>
	<author>danking</author>
	<datestamp>1247067540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pandora was available in Canada.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pandora was available in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pandora was available in Canada.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622125</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is too much. Why should I have to pay for an internet version when the RF version of the same service is free? I would sooner download and stream from my own server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is too much .
Why should I have to pay for an internet version when the RF version of the same service is free ?
I would sooner download and stream from my own server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is too much.
Why should I have to pay for an internet version when the RF version of the same service is free?
I would sooner download and stream from my own server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630943</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Watch for Compilations that are &quot;Too Good to Be True&quot;.</p></div><p>Like this one?</p><p>Check this out, each and every one of you.  Compilation tape, of my own making. I call this the "Greatest Zooks Album".  Featuring artists like, well I got some Hendrix on there, some Joplin, Mama Cass, Belushi... all great artists that asphyxiated on their own vomit!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch for Compilations that are " Too Good to Be True " .Like this one ? Check this out , each and every one of you .
Compilation tape , of my own making .
I call this the " Greatest Zooks Album " .
Featuring artists like , well I got some Hendrix on there , some Joplin , Mama Cass , Belushi... all great artists that asphyxiated on their own vomit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch for Compilations that are "Too Good to Be True".Like this one?Check this out, each and every one of you.
Compilation tape, of my own making.
I call this the "Greatest Zooks Album".
Featuring artists like, well I got some Hendrix on there, some Joplin, Mama Cass, Belushi... all great artists that asphyxiated on their own vomit!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627461</id>
	<title>Ading Pandora.com to my filter list</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1247086500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ad-supported site PLUS paying and still getting bombarded with ads?</p><p>Later, Pandora. Your project was nice while it wasn't commercial. People are going to wonder why they suddenly can't listen to Pandora, and I'm going to tel anyone on my network why I've got that site filtered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad-supported site PLUS paying and still getting bombarded with ads ? Later , Pandora .
Your project was nice while it was n't commercial .
People are going to wonder why they suddenly ca n't listen to Pandora , and I 'm going to tel anyone on my network why I 've got that site filtered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad-supported site PLUS paying and still getting bombarded with ads?Later, Pandora.
Your project was nice while it wasn't commercial.
People are going to wonder why they suddenly can't listen to Pandora, and I'm going to tel anyone on my network why I've got that site filtered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622653</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>I.M.O.G.</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to 2009... Every creditor everywhere offers choices which accomodate online security concerns. For example, one time use numbers for a transaction. There are other options also.  Your fear is uninformed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to 2009... Every creditor everywhere offers choices which accomodate online security concerns .
For example , one time use numbers for a transaction .
There are other options also .
Your fear is uninformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to 2009... Every creditor everywhere offers choices which accomodate online security concerns.
For example, one time use numbers for a transaction.
There are other options also.
Your fear is uninformed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623657</id>
	<title>Re:Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't consider the possibility that people that listen &gt;40 hrs per month are likely to love the service.  Therefore even if they are profitable, there is probably a positive correlation with those users being willing to pay the fee instead of being cut off for the month.</p><p>Although I'm not convinced Pandora is making money off of anything at this point.  Most internet services aren't (youtube, facebook, etc are all losing money still)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't consider the possibility that people that listen &gt; 40 hrs per month are likely to love the service .
Therefore even if they are profitable , there is probably a positive correlation with those users being willing to pay the fee instead of being cut off for the month.Although I 'm not convinced Pandora is making money off of anything at this point .
Most internet services are n't ( youtube , facebook , etc are all losing money still )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't consider the possibility that people that listen &gt;40 hrs per month are likely to love the service.
Therefore even if they are profitable, there is probably a positive correlation with those users being willing to pay the fee instead of being cut off for the month.Although I'm not convinced Pandora is making money off of anything at this point.
Most internet services aren't (youtube, facebook, etc are all losing money still)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28632327</id>
	<title>weird</title>
	<author>bongo\_X</author>
	<datestamp>1247073600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Weird, I just subscribed to Pandora last week.  Well, I guess it's not that weird.  It's something though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Weird , I just subscribed to Pandora last week .
Well , I guess it 's not that weird .
It 's something though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weird, I just subscribed to Pandora last week.
Well, I guess it's not that weird.
It's something though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623535</id>
	<title>Re:lower royalty rates negotiated</title>
	<author>speculatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1247072520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure there will be a way round this. make the radio station itself run on a shoestring budget, and have the profits made by a controlling organisation - since after all they pay a percentage of revenue, just ensure the revenue is tiny!
<br>
<br>
surely it's about time the OSS movement learned how to do <a href="http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wapedia.mobi">HollyWood Accounting</a> [wapedia.mobi]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there will be a way round this .
make the radio station itself run on a shoestring budget , and have the profits made by a controlling organisation - since after all they pay a percentage of revenue , just ensure the revenue is tiny !
surely it 's about time the OSS movement learned how to do HollyWood Accounting [ wapedia.mobi ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there will be a way round this.
make the radio station itself run on a shoestring budget, and have the profits made by a controlling organisation - since after all they pay a percentage of revenue, just ensure the revenue is tiny!
surely it's about time the OSS movement learned how to do HollyWood Accounting [wapedia.mobi]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628471</id>
	<title>Re:Slacker?</title>
	<author>atraintocry</author>
	<datestamp>1247048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally think the Music Genome Project is awesome. The thing I like about Pandora is that it does an amazing job of introducing me to music based on how the music sounds rather than by "people who listen to this generally also listen to this" (which, granted, is not a bad way of doing it either). But the more the merrier. I listen to shoutcast stations and web streams of FM stations more than Pandora anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think the Music Genome Project is awesome .
The thing I like about Pandora is that it does an amazing job of introducing me to music based on how the music sounds rather than by " people who listen to this generally also listen to this " ( which , granted , is not a bad way of doing it either ) .
But the more the merrier .
I listen to shoutcast stations and web streams of FM stations more than Pandora anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think the Music Genome Project is awesome.
The thing I like about Pandora is that it does an amazing job of introducing me to music based on how the music sounds rather than by "people who listen to this generally also listen to this" (which, granted, is not a bad way of doing it either).
But the more the merrier.
I listen to shoutcast stations and web streams of FM stations more than Pandora anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28636595</id>
	<title>Dear Bands and Radio</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1247154240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should PAY radio stations to play your music, thus making it free to listeners.  A song is a commercial for your album and tour.  Facilitate getting what you want (heard, sold) by making it easy for us.</p><p>i'm going to listen to Pandora less now, or maybe not at all.  Your commercials were annoying enough.  Your station is nothing BUT commercials, really.  So why are you making me listen to MORE ads?  Why the hell should i PAY to listen to ads?  Charge the bands, charge the labels.  Integrate with iTunes and give a discount for purchases.  This will establish the connection between giving us what we want for free and us buying stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should PAY radio stations to play your music , thus making it free to listeners .
A song is a commercial for your album and tour .
Facilitate getting what you want ( heard , sold ) by making it easy for us.i 'm going to listen to Pandora less now , or maybe not at all .
Your commercials were annoying enough .
Your station is nothing BUT commercials , really .
So why are you making me listen to MORE ads ?
Why the hell should i PAY to listen to ads ?
Charge the bands , charge the labels .
Integrate with iTunes and give a discount for purchases .
This will establish the connection between giving us what we want for free and us buying stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should PAY radio stations to play your music, thus making it free to listeners.
A song is a commercial for your album and tour.
Facilitate getting what you want (heard, sold) by making it easy for us.i'm going to listen to Pandora less now, or maybe not at all.
Your commercials were annoying enough.
Your station is nothing BUT commercials, really.
So why are you making me listen to MORE ads?
Why the hell should i PAY to listen to ads?
Charge the bands, charge the labels.
Integrate with iTunes and give a discount for purchases.
This will establish the connection between giving us what we want for free and us buying stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623141</id>
	<title>That does it!</title>
	<author>Mordac</author>
	<datestamp>1247071080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a top ten percent user, this is it, the final straw. I'll pay the whole $3 a month for premium service. I hope they're happy, they've converted me from a non-paying user to a paid subscriber.</p><p>I hit the 40 hours probably the first week of every month, I require a soundtrack to be able to program, and Pandora works wonders for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a top ten percent user , this is it , the final straw .
I 'll pay the whole $ 3 a month for premium service .
I hope they 're happy , they 've converted me from a non-paying user to a paid subscriber.I hit the 40 hours probably the first week of every month , I require a soundtrack to be able to program , and Pandora works wonders for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a top ten percent user, this is it, the final straw.
I'll pay the whole $3 a month for premium service.
I hope they're happy, they've converted me from a non-paying user to a paid subscriber.I hit the 40 hours probably the first week of every month, I require a soundtrack to be able to program, and Pandora works wonders for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622583</id>
	<title>Top Listener Email</title>
	<author>Mondo1287</author>
	<datestamp>1247069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the email I received from Pandora:


Hi, it&#226;(TM)s Tim -

I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack.


I&#226;(TM)m writing with some important news. Please forgive the lengthy email; it requires some explaining.


First, I want to let you know that we&#226;(TM)ve reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007. After more than two precarious years, we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates &#226;" thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill. We are deeply thankful.

While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10\% of our users who are our heaviest listeners. Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web. Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone. Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might.


We hate the idea of capping anyone's usage, so we've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you. We've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you:

Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and, if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, to pay just $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month. This isn't a subscription. You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month. You'll be able to keep listening as much as you'd like for the remainder of the month. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable

- the same price as a single song download.
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One. Pandora One costs $36 per year. In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising, Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams, an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser, personalized skins for the Pandora player, and a number of other features: <a href="http://www.pandora.com/pandora\_one" title="pandora.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pandora.com/pandora\_one</a> [pandora.com].

If neither of these options works for you, I hope you'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way, especially if you're really careful about hitting pause when you&#226;(TM)re not listening. We&#226;(TM)ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit, and we&#226;(TM)ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours you&#226;(TM)ve already used each month.

We&#226;(TM)ll be implementing this change starting this month (July), I&#226;(TM)d welcome your feedback and suggestions. The combination of our usage patterns and the "per song per listener" royalty cost creates a financial reality that we can't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come.


Please don't hesitate to email me back with your thoughts.


Sincerely,


Tim
Founder</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the email I received from Pandora : Hi , it   ( TM ) s Tim - I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack .
I   ( TM ) m writing with some important news .
Please forgive the lengthy email ; it requires some explaining .
First , I want to let you know that we   ( TM ) ve reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007 .
After more than two precarious years , we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates   " thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill .
We are deeply thankful .
While we did the best we could to lower the rates , we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10 \ % of our users who are our heaviest listeners .
Specifically , we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web .
Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener , it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone .
Most listeners will never hit this cap , but it seems that you might .
We hate the idea of capping anyone 's usage , so we 've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you .
We 've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you : Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and , if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month , to pay just $ 0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month .
This is n't a subscription .
You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month .
You 'll be able to keep listening as much as you 'd like for the remainder of the month .
We hope this is relatively painless and affordable - the same price as a single song download .
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One .
Pandora One costs $ 36 per year .
In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising , Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams , an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser , personalized skins for the Pandora player , and a number of other features : http : //www.pandora.com/pandora \ _one [ pandora.com ] .
If neither of these options works for you , I hope you 'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way , especially if you 're really careful about hitting pause when you   ( TM ) re not listening .
We   ( TM ) ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit , and we   ( TM ) ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours you   ( TM ) ve already used each month .
We   ( TM ) ll be implementing this change starting this month ( July ) , I   ( TM ) d welcome your feedback and suggestions .
The combination of our usage patterns and the " per song per listener " royalty cost creates a financial reality that we ca n't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come .
Please do n't hesitate to email me back with your thoughts .
Sincerely , Tim Founder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the email I received from Pandora:


Hi, itâ(TM)s Tim -

I hope this email finds you enjoying a great summer Pandora soundtrack.
Iâ(TM)m writing with some important news.
Please forgive the lengthy email; it requires some explaining.
First, I want to let you know that weâ(TM)ve reached a resolution to the calamitous Internet radio royalty ruling of 2007.
After more than two precarious years, we are finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates â" thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our listeners who voiced an absolute avalanche of support for us on Capitol Hill.
We are deeply thankful.
While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10\% of our users who are our heaviest listeners.
Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web.
Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone.
Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might.
We hate the idea of capping anyone's usage, so we've been working to devise an alternative for listeners like you.
We've come up with two solutions and we hope that one of them will work for you:

Your first option is to continue listening just as you have been and, if and when you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, to pay just $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month.
This isn't a subscription.
You can pay by credit card and your card will be charged for just that one month.
You'll be able to keep listening as much as you'd like for the remainder of the month.
We hope this is relatively painless and affordable

- the same price as a single song download.
Your second option is to upgrade to our premium version called Pandora One.
Pandora One costs $36 per year.
In addition to unlimited monthly listening and no advertising, Pandora One offers very high quality 192 Kbps streams, an elegant desktop application that eliminates the need for a browser, personalized skins for the Pandora player, and a number of other features: http://www.pandora.com/pandora\_one [pandora.com].
If neither of these options works for you, I hope you'll keep listening to the free version - 40 hours each month will go a long way, especially if you're really careful about hitting pause when youâ(TM)re not listening.
Weâ(TM)ll be sure to let you know if you start getting close to the limit, and weâ(TM)ve created a counter you can access to see how many hours youâ(TM)ve already used each month.
Weâ(TM)ll be implementing this change starting this month (July), Iâ(TM)d welcome your feedback and suggestions.
The combination of our usage patterns and the "per song per listener" royalty cost creates a financial reality that we can't ignore...but we very much want you to continue listening for years to come.
Please don't hesitate to email me back with your thoughts.
Sincerely,


Tim
Founder</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622759</id>
	<title>Only around 5.5\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can only listen to Pandora online music for free for close to 5.5\% of a month.  If you factor out sleeping (assuming most techies get 6 hours) we can get close to 7.5\% of our month in free music! Can't wait till February rolls around and we can get close to 8\% of our month!!

Who really cares about paying a dollar for music, thanks Pandora for not ripping us off like itunes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We can only listen to Pandora online music for free for close to 5.5 \ % of a month .
If you factor out sleeping ( assuming most techies get 6 hours ) we can get close to 7.5 \ % of our month in free music !
Ca n't wait till February rolls around and we can get close to 8 \ % of our month ! !
Who really cares about paying a dollar for music , thanks Pandora for not ripping us off like itunes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can only listen to Pandora online music for free for close to 5.5\% of a month.
If you factor out sleeping (assuming most techies get 6 hours) we can get close to 7.5\% of our month in free music!
Can't wait till February rolls around and we can get close to 8\% of our month!!
Who really cares about paying a dollar for music, thanks Pandora for not ripping us off like itunes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622433</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>Anivair</author>
	<datestamp>1247068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the reason people on the net generally refuse to pay 0.99 for things (like porn sites) is not thrift, but fear.  Usually, it's a scam.  Pandora is not a scam, so I'll gladly pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the reason people on the net generally refuse to pay 0.99 for things ( like porn sites ) is not thrift , but fear .
Usually , it 's a scam .
Pandora is not a scam , so I 'll gladly pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the reason people on the net generally refuse to pay 0.99 for things (like porn sites) is not thrift, but fear.
Usually, it's a scam.
Pandora is not a scam, so I'll gladly pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623077</id>
	<title>Re:Slacker?</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1247070840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a matter of taste. I prefer Pandora to Slacker. Especially since Pandora's new Blackberry app doesn't choke my BB 8310 like the Slacker app did. Looking at both sites they both have adds but the Slacker site "feels" like it is trying to sell me stuff. Kinda like I just stepped onto a used car lot. There are things I like/dislike on both but I just like Pandora more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a matter of taste .
I prefer Pandora to Slacker .
Especially since Pandora 's new Blackberry app does n't choke my BB 8310 like the Slacker app did .
Looking at both sites they both have adds but the Slacker site " feels " like it is trying to sell me stuff .
Kinda like I just stepped onto a used car lot .
There are things I like/dislike on both but I just like Pandora more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a matter of taste.
I prefer Pandora to Slacker.
Especially since Pandora's new Blackberry app doesn't choke my BB 8310 like the Slacker app did.
Looking at both sites they both have adds but the Slacker site "feels" like it is trying to sell me stuff.
Kinda like I just stepped onto a used car lot.
There are things I like/dislike on both but I just like Pandora more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626073</id>
	<title>Re:Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>matt20102</author>
	<datestamp>1247081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The RIAA still thinks that they are owed money for every listen of 'their' songs.  Out of the goodness of their hearts, however, they have graciously allowed us peons several listens per month without having to exchange cash for the privilege.  I, for one, applaud this altruistic move!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA still thinks that they are owed money for every listen of 'their ' songs .
Out of the goodness of their hearts , however , they have graciously allowed us peons several listens per month without having to exchange cash for the privilege .
I , for one , applaud this altruistic move !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA still thinks that they are owed money for every listen of 'their' songs.
Out of the goodness of their hearts, however, they have graciously allowed us peons several listens per month without having to exchange cash for the privilege.
I, for one, applaud this altruistic move!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622073</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>its 0.99 / month, not a one time fee.


Still, id pay it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>its 0.99 / month , not a one time fee .
Still , id pay it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its 0.99 / month, not a one time fee.
Still, id pay it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621929</id>
	<title>my massive penis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>suck it linux users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suck it linux users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suck it linux users</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622223</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1247067960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Per month btw, at least according to the summary.

That's still inexpensive enough I might come back to Pandora and chip in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per month btw , at least according to the summary .
That 's still inexpensive enough I might come back to Pandora and chip in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per month btw, at least according to the summary.
That's still inexpensive enough I might come back to Pandora and chip in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622269</id>
	<title>Possibly great news for them</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1247068080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason I never signed up to begin with was that I figured the music licensing cartel would drive them out of business before long. Now I'll go check it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason I never signed up to begin with was that I figured the music licensing cartel would drive them out of business before long .
Now I 'll go check it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason I never signed up to begin with was that I figured the music licensing cartel would drive them out of business before long.
Now I'll go check it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626767</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>cdrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1247083740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously it's going to depend on what the original source is as to if the quality is like the original, "good enough", or crap.  If someone downloaded Transformers-CAM.mpg and was expecting Bluray quality, they are delusional.  If they download Transformers-DVDrip.divx, it's going to probably be pretty high quality unless they screwed up the encoding.  If it's Transformers-DVDRip.iso, it's probably bit-perfect if it hadn't been shrunk to fit on a DVD-R.</p><p>The same thing applies to MP3s, just that it's even easier/quicker to rip/encode CDs at a very high quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously it 's going to depend on what the original source is as to if the quality is like the original , " good enough " , or crap .
If someone downloaded Transformers-CAM.mpg and was expecting Bluray quality , they are delusional .
If they download Transformers-DVDrip.divx , it 's going to probably be pretty high quality unless they screwed up the encoding .
If it 's Transformers-DVDRip.iso , it 's probably bit-perfect if it had n't been shrunk to fit on a DVD-R.The same thing applies to MP3s , just that it 's even easier/quicker to rip/encode CDs at a very high quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously it's going to depend on what the original source is as to if the quality is like the original, "good enough", or crap.
If someone downloaded Transformers-CAM.mpg and was expecting Bluray quality, they are delusional.
If they download Transformers-DVDrip.divx, it's going to probably be pretty high quality unless they screwed up the encoding.
If it's Transformers-DVDRip.iso, it's probably bit-perfect if it hadn't been shrunk to fit on a DVD-R.The same thing applies to MP3s, just that it's even easier/quicker to rip/encode CDs at a very high quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624275</id>
	<title>I won't.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247075280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pandora doesn't play what you want to hear.  It plays what IT thinks you want you to hear.<br>If I'm going to pay, I want on-demand listening of specific songs out of a VERY large library.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pandora does n't play what you want to hear .
It plays what IT thinks you want you to hear.If I 'm going to pay , I want on-demand listening of specific songs out of a VERY large library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pandora doesn't play what you want to hear.
It plays what IT thinks you want you to hear.If I'm going to pay, I want on-demand listening of specific songs out of a VERY large library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630073</id>
	<title>Tried it</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried it.  Have it on my iphone.  I never use it anymore.  When I heard they were putting ads into the songs and that you could be interrupted mid song I laughed and decided to cease all use.</p><p>Even if they corrected the situation they don't seem to understand.  I don't listen to internet radio for the ads.  I listen for the music.  There are other ways to make money.  You don't need to ad subsidize everything.  Find another way.</p><p>I have no problem with minimal fees.  In fact, I use Last.fm. Not always, but semi-frequently.  I pay them the $3.00 a month not because I have to but because I want them to survive and feed me solid music without the ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried it .
Have it on my iphone .
I never use it anymore .
When I heard they were putting ads into the songs and that you could be interrupted mid song I laughed and decided to cease all use.Even if they corrected the situation they do n't seem to understand .
I do n't listen to internet radio for the ads .
I listen for the music .
There are other ways to make money .
You do n't need to ad subsidize everything .
Find another way.I have no problem with minimal fees .
In fact , I use Last.fm .
Not always , but semi-frequently .
I pay them the $ 3.00 a month not because I have to but because I want them to survive and feed me solid music without the ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried it.
Have it on my iphone.
I never use it anymore.
When I heard they were putting ads into the songs and that you could be interrupted mid song I laughed and decided to cease all use.Even if they corrected the situation they don't seem to understand.
I don't listen to internet radio for the ads.
I listen for the music.
There are other ways to make money.
You don't need to ad subsidize everything.
Find another way.I have no problem with minimal fees.
In fact, I use Last.fm.
Not always, but semi-frequently.
I pay them the $3.00 a month not because I have to but because I want them to survive and feed me solid music without the ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624605</id>
	<title>Re:lower royalty rates negotiated</title>
	<author>anonymousbob22</author>
	<datestamp>1247076360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but then you'll just have to pay the 14 cent per song fee. Unless you never plan on playing any songs...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but then you 'll just have to pay the 14 cent per song fee .
Unless you never plan on playing any songs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but then you'll just have to pay the 14 cent per song fee.
Unless you never plan on playing any songs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622413</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really have to stop reading <a href="http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content\_selector=piracy\_online\_the\_law" title="riaa.com">this</a> [riaa.com] it is making me sick.<br>
<br>
Here is something even non-pirates have done at least once in there life:<br>
You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.<br>
<br>
So you mean that since the days of cassette tapes every person who has made their girlfriend/boyfriend a mix tape or mix CD is in violation of the law?  It must be true, the RIAA says so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really have to stop reading this [ riaa.com ] it is making me sick .
Here is something even non-pirates have done at least once in there life : You have a computer with a CD burner , which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends .
So you mean that since the days of cassette tapes every person who has made their girlfriend/boyfriend a mix tape or mix CD is in violation of the law ?
It must be true , the RIAA says so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really have to stop reading this [riaa.com] it is making me sick.
Here is something even non-pirates have done at least once in there life:
You have a computer with a CD burner, which you use to burn copies of music you have downloaded onto writable CDs for all of your friends.
So you mean that since the days of cassette tapes every person who has made their girlfriend/boyfriend a mix tape or mix CD is in violation of the law?
It must be true, the RIAA says so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622943</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>LandDolphin</author>
	<datestamp>1247070360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The do offer a yearly subscription optn, if you so choose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The do offer a yearly subscription optn , if you so choose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The do offer a yearly subscription optn, if you so choose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28632415</id>
	<title>Canada misses you, pandora!</title>
	<author>Dr. Hellno</author>
	<datestamp>1247074800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come back to us!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come back to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come back to us!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628995</id>
	<title>Re:I wish...</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1247050620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who needs Pandora?<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://music.aol.com/radioguide/bb" title="aol.com" rel="nofollow">AOL Radio</a> [aol.com] has a ton of marvellous channels, believe it or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs Pandora ?
    AOL Radio [ aol.com ] has a ton of marvellous channels , believe it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs Pandora?
  
  AOL Radio [aol.com] has a ton of marvellous channels, believe it or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</id>
	<title>I guess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess a one time fee of $0.99 isn't too much to ask. I do have over that with the change in my pocket from my two coffees I go this morning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess a one time fee of $ 0.99 is n't too much to ask .
I do have over that with the change in my pocket from my two coffees I go this morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess a one time fee of $0.99 isn't too much to ask.
I do have over that with the change in my pocket from my two coffees I go this morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623591</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>MrBippers</author>
	<datestamp>1247072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess a one time fee of $0.99 isn't too much to ask. I do have over that with the change in my pocket from my two coffees I go this morning.</p></div><p>Any time I have $1.00 or more in change, I feel like I messed up somewhere along the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess a one time fee of $ 0.99 is n't too much to ask .
I do have over that with the change in my pocket from my two coffees I go this morning.Any time I have $ 1.00 or more in change , I feel like I messed up somewhere along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess a one time fee of $0.99 isn't too much to ask.
I do have over that with the change in my pocket from my two coffees I go this morning.Any time I have $1.00 or more in change, I feel like I messed up somewhere along the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628943</id>
	<title>Re:Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247050500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of it as an "ad revenue versus licensing fee" curve.  It's not linear.  This change is intentionally aimed at heavy listeners.  So, my guess is the ad revenue for the heavy listeners isn't profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of it as an " ad revenue versus licensing fee " curve .
It 's not linear .
This change is intentionally aimed at heavy listeners .
So , my guess is the ad revenue for the heavy listeners is n't profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of it as an "ad revenue versus licensing fee" curve.
It's not linear.
This change is intentionally aimed at heavy listeners.
So, my guess is the ad revenue for the heavy listeners isn't profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623621</id>
	<title>Top 10\%</title>
	<author>spicyed</author>
	<datestamp>1247072820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Pandora about 8 hours per day.  Mainly when I'm at work.  Although I really wouldn't mind paying $.99c for 3 more weeks of this service, I can't really see myself doing it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Pandora about 8 hours per day .
Mainly when I 'm at work .
Although I really would n't mind paying $ .99c for 3 more weeks of this service , I ca n't really see myself doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Pandora about 8 hours per day.
Mainly when I'm at work.
Although I really wouldn't mind paying $.99c for 3 more weeks of this service, I can't really see myself doing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625189</id>
	<title>What is the appeal of pandora?</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1247078280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not trolling.  I've never used it.  But why is this used vs. shoutcast servers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not trolling .
I 've never used it .
But why is this used vs. shoutcast servers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not trolling.
I've never used it.
But why is this used vs. shoutcast servers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625703</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>jabelli</author>
	<datestamp>1247080080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you get it? When it suits the media companies, it's a physical object, and when it suits them otherwise, it's a license. If I lose one CD out of a box set, it's "too bad, so sad, here's another set for $99, no, you can't legally copy it from anyone. License? What license? We sold you some CDs, there's no license." Yet if I play it at work and a customer can hear it, suddenly I need a "license" for a "public performance?" I'm not "performing" anything, I'm listening to my damn CDs, too bad if someone else can hear them. If it's an object, then I should be able to do anything I want with it, except make and distribute copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you get it ?
When it suits the media companies , it 's a physical object , and when it suits them otherwise , it 's a license .
If I lose one CD out of a box set , it 's " too bad , so sad , here 's another set for $ 99 , no , you ca n't legally copy it from anyone .
License ? What license ?
We sold you some CDs , there 's no license .
" Yet if I play it at work and a customer can hear it , suddenly I need a " license " for a " public performance ?
" I 'm not " performing " anything , I 'm listening to my damn CDs , too bad if someone else can hear them .
If it 's an object , then I should be able to do anything I want with it , except make and distribute copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you get it?
When it suits the media companies, it's a physical object, and when it suits them otherwise, it's a license.
If I lose one CD out of a box set, it's "too bad, so sad, here's another set for $99, no, you can't legally copy it from anyone.
License? What license?
We sold you some CDs, there's no license.
" Yet if I play it at work and a customer can hear it, suddenly I need a "license" for a "public performance?
" I'm not "performing" anything, I'm listening to my damn CDs, too bad if someone else can hear them.
If it's an object, then I should be able to do anything I want with it, except make and distribute copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1247067780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one will not be using Pandora anymore if they decide that I ought to be charged. I am clearly not at all opposed to the fee, 99 cents is dirt cheap for what you get from Pandora. What worries me about all this micropayment nonsense is having to give out my credit card number ALL THE FRAKKIN TIME. I hate giving out my CC number. This is an especially large concern for Windows users, where keyloggers are rampant. When people get more and more used to giving out their CC numbers, you can expect phishing to become even more prevalent than it already is. I don't want to have to pay for everything I see and use on the web. It is obnoxious. Even if the price is more than worth it in the actual dollars and cents definition of the word, it is still not worth HAVING to pay for it. At least that is my $0.02 (which you all now owe me btw, please reply with your credit card number).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one will not be using Pandora anymore if they decide that I ought to be charged .
I am clearly not at all opposed to the fee , 99 cents is dirt cheap for what you get from Pandora .
What worries me about all this micropayment nonsense is having to give out my credit card number ALL THE FRAKKIN TIME .
I hate giving out my CC number .
This is an especially large concern for Windows users , where keyloggers are rampant .
When people get more and more used to giving out their CC numbers , you can expect phishing to become even more prevalent than it already is .
I do n't want to have to pay for everything I see and use on the web .
It is obnoxious .
Even if the price is more than worth it in the actual dollars and cents definition of the word , it is still not worth HAVING to pay for it .
At least that is my $ 0.02 ( which you all now owe me btw , please reply with your credit card number ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one will not be using Pandora anymore if they decide that I ought to be charged.
I am clearly not at all opposed to the fee, 99 cents is dirt cheap for what you get from Pandora.
What worries me about all this micropayment nonsense is having to give out my credit card number ALL THE FRAKKIN TIME.
I hate giving out my CC number.
This is an especially large concern for Windows users, where keyloggers are rampant.
When people get more and more used to giving out their CC numbers, you can expect phishing to become even more prevalent than it already is.
I don't want to have to pay for everything I see and use on the web.
It is obnoxious.
Even if the price is more than worth it in the actual dollars and cents definition of the word, it is still not worth HAVING to pay for it.
At least that is my $0.02 (which you all now owe me btw, please reply with your credit card number).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927</id>
	<title>Ads &amp; paid use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Why is it that we have to pay for a service that is ad based too? It might start with $0.99/month. Before you know it, it will be $5/month.. etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Why is it that we have to pay for a service that is ad based too ?
It might start with $ 0.99/month .
Before you know it , it will be $ 5/month.. etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Why is it that we have to pay for a service that is ad based too?
It might start with $0.99/month.
Before you know it, it will be $5/month.. etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</id>
	<title>Have you read this?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247067660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content\_selector=piracy\_tips\_for\_consumers" title="riaa.com" rel="nofollow">Piracy Tips for Consumers</a> [riaa.com], I was reading the &quot;royalty rates&quot; link and saw that the RIAA was behind it, so I went to their website and found this jewel.<br>
Of note: Watch for Compilations that are &quot;Too Good to Be True&quot;. Why are they too good to be true? If customers would want that compilation why haven't you sold it to them?<br>
Even better: Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.  It is a freaking digital copy, it is the exact same quality!  Does anyone actually believe this stuff?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy Tips for Consumers [ riaa.com ] , I was reading the " royalty rates " link and saw that the RIAA was behind it , so I went to their website and found this jewel .
Of note : Watch for Compilations that are " Too Good to Be True " .
Why are they too good to be true ?
If customers would want that compilation why have n't you sold it to them ?
Even better : Trust your ear : The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent .
It is a freaking digital copy , it is the exact same quality !
Does anyone actually believe this stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piracy Tips for Consumers [riaa.com], I was reading the "royalty rates" link and saw that the RIAA was behind it, so I went to their website and found this jewel.
Of note: Watch for Compilations that are "Too Good to Be True".
Why are they too good to be true?
If customers would want that compilation why haven't you sold it to them?
Even better: Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.
It is a freaking digital copy, it is the exact same quality!
Does anyone actually believe this stuff?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622121</id>
	<title>Never == Next Month?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[...] one-time fee [...] unlimited listening [...] for a month"</p><p>Gee, Unlimited and one-time sure aren't what they used to be..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] one-time fee [ ... ] unlimited listening [ ... ] for a month " Gee , Unlimited and one-time sure are n't what they used to be. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[...] one-time fee [...] unlimited listening [...] for a month"Gee, Unlimited and one-time sure aren't what they used to be..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630917</id>
	<title>Re:Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that, my friend, is how the RIAA collects royalties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that , my friend , is how the RIAA collects royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that, my friend, is how the RIAA collects royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623195</id>
	<title>Re:still free, slightly more annoyingly so</title>
	<author>jitterman</author>
	<datestamp>1247071320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[guinnessbeercommercialdude]Brilliant![/guinnessbeercommercialdude]</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ guinnessbeercommercialdude ] Brilliant !
[ /guinnessbeercommercialdude ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[guinnessbeercommercialdude]Brilliant!
[/guinnessbeercommercialdude]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623409</id>
	<title>Re:price is right, now how do I hand them a dollar</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247072100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The price is right but the money ends up being used to sue helpless people to oblivion. I stopped spending money on any music years ago because of that.</p><p>As for the credit card thing: if your credit card number was compromised you just report it (they'll probably catch it before you do anyway) within 60 days, they mail you a new card, and that's it. My experience with doing this has been painless and taken only a couple minutes. You <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre04.shtm" title="ftc.gov">aren't responsible, and can't be, for any fraudulent charges</a> [ftc.gov]. No liability, no worries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The price is right but the money ends up being used to sue helpless people to oblivion .
I stopped spending money on any music years ago because of that.As for the credit card thing : if your credit card number was compromised you just report it ( they 'll probably catch it before you do anyway ) within 60 days , they mail you a new card , and that 's it .
My experience with doing this has been painless and taken only a couple minutes .
You are n't responsible , and ca n't be , for any fraudulent charges [ ftc.gov ] .
No liability , no worries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The price is right but the money ends up being used to sue helpless people to oblivion.
I stopped spending money on any music years ago because of that.As for the credit card thing: if your credit card number was compromised you just report it (they'll probably catch it before you do anyway) within 60 days, they mail you a new card, and that's it.
My experience with doing this has been painless and taken only a couple minutes.
You aren't responsible, and can't be, for any fraudulent charges [ftc.gov].
No liability, no worries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247068260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I shouldn&rsquo;t be replying to myself, but I&rsquo;m still reading the RIAA website and I found another jewel:<br>
Even if you don&rsquo;t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.<br>
If I own the CD's, but don't have software to burn them, don't I have the right to download the songs off a P2P network?  I purchased the right to have a backup copy, does it matter how I get it?  Seems to me like the RIAA is full of it on this one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I shouldn    t be replying to myself , but I    m still reading the RIAA website and I found another jewel : Even if you don    t illegally offer recordings to others , you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members .
If I own the CD 's , but do n't have software to burn them , do n't I have the right to download the songs off a P2P network ?
I purchased the right to have a backup copy , does it matter how I get it ?
Seems to me like the RIAA is full of it on this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I shouldn’t be replying to myself, but I’m still reading the RIAA website and I found another jewel:
Even if you don’t illegally offer recordings to others, you join a file-sharing network and download unauthorized copies of all the copyrighted music you want for free from the computers of other network members.
If I own the CD's, but don't have software to burn them, don't I have the right to download the songs off a P2P network?
I purchased the right to have a backup copy, does it matter how I get it?
Seems to me like the RIAA is full of it on this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624617</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>shmlco</author>
	<datestamp>1247076420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, making a cassette copy was illegal. But back then making a cassette copy was also self-limiting, as doing so took time and cost money (the tape).</p><p>Hence the average individual didn't record and give away tapes to 10,000 of his closest "friends", as they do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , making a cassette copy was illegal .
But back then making a cassette copy was also self-limiting , as doing so took time and cost money ( the tape ) .Hence the average individual did n't record and give away tapes to 10,000 of his closest " friends " , as they do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, making a cassette copy was illegal.
But back then making a cassette copy was also self-limiting, as doing so took time and cost money (the tape).Hence the average individual didn't record and give away tapes to 10,000 of his closest "friends", as they do today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625533</id>
	<title>Re:lower royalty rates negotiated</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1247079540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The labels should pay the stations for the free advertising without having to spend any of their own money on infrastructure.  Oh, *that* would be payola and illegal.  *sigh*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The labels should pay the stations for the free advertising without having to spend any of their own money on infrastructure .
Oh , * that * would be payola and illegal .
* sigh * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The labels should pay the stations for the free advertising without having to spend any of their own money on infrastructure.
Oh, *that* would be payola and illegal.
*sigh*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621897</id>
	<title>sounds like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247066820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>theyre opening their own box...  which sounds dirty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>theyre opening their own box... which sounds dirty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theyre opening their own box...  which sounds dirty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623031</id>
	<title>Welcome to the '90s!</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1247070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the days when bandwidth was *really* expensive and Biz Dev Guys were cheap:</p><p>Meetings with new site managers went something like this:</p><p>"The Good News:  Traffic is 500 times more than predicted; The Bad News: Traffic is 500 times more than predicted..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the days when bandwidth was * really * expensive and Biz Dev Guys were cheap : Meetings with new site managers went something like this : " The Good News : Traffic is 500 times more than predicted ; The Bad News : Traffic is 500 times more than predicted... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the days when bandwidth was *really* expensive and Biz Dev Guys were cheap:Meetings with new site managers went something like this:"The Good News:  Traffic is 500 times more than predicted; The Bad News: Traffic is 500 times more than predicted..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487</id>
	<title>Usage and profit negatively correlated?</title>
	<author>l00sr</author>
	<datestamp>1247068860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there must be a good, albeit esoteric explanation for this, but the economics behind this decision are baffling to me.  One would think that if Pandora had a profitable business model, then profit and listeners' usage of their service should be positively correlated; i.e., the more I listen, the more profit Pandora makes from advertising.  However, if they're encouraging people to use the service less, the obvious explanation would be that usage and profit are <em>negatively</em> correlated; i.e., Pandora would be hemorraging money.</p><p>It's as if Sony were to suddenly decide to cap the number of PS3's you can buy to limit their losses...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there must be a good , albeit esoteric explanation for this , but the economics behind this decision are baffling to me .
One would think that if Pandora had a profitable business model , then profit and listeners ' usage of their service should be positively correlated ; i.e. , the more I listen , the more profit Pandora makes from advertising .
However , if they 're encouraging people to use the service less , the obvious explanation would be that usage and profit are negatively correlated ; i.e. , Pandora would be hemorraging money.It 's as if Sony were to suddenly decide to cap the number of PS3 's you can buy to limit their losses.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there must be a good, albeit esoteric explanation for this, but the economics behind this decision are baffling to me.
One would think that if Pandora had a profitable business model, then profit and listeners' usage of their service should be positively correlated; i.e., the more I listen, the more profit Pandora makes from advertising.
However, if they're encouraging people to use the service less, the obvious explanation would be that usage and profit are negatively correlated; i.e., Pandora would be hemorraging money.It's as if Sony were to suddenly decide to cap the number of PS3's you can buy to limit their losses...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405</id>
	<title>Slacker?</title>
	<author>purplebear</author>
	<datestamp>1247068560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do none of you use <a href="http://www.slacker.com/" title="slacker.com">http://www.slacker.com/</a> [slacker.com]? I started with Pandora, but I find Slacker far superior. It is free with ads and has a paid subscription with no ads. The channels are more professionally programmed, so I don't get the odd song thrown in that just doesn't fit the chosen genre in the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do none of you use http : //www.slacker.com/ [ slacker.com ] ?
I started with Pandora , but I find Slacker far superior .
It is free with ads and has a paid subscription with no ads .
The channels are more professionally programmed , so I do n't get the odd song thrown in that just does n't fit the chosen genre in the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do none of you use http://www.slacker.com/ [slacker.com]?
I started with Pandora, but I find Slacker far superior.
It is free with ads and has a paid subscription with no ads.
The channels are more professionally programmed, so I don't get the odd song thrown in that just doesn't fit the chosen genre in the least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623653</id>
	<title>Mobile app</title>
	<author>slyrat</author>
	<datestamp>1247072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm curious if the old mobile apps (iPhone, BBerry, etc) are going to continue to work. If so then there is at least one way to get around this cap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious if the old mobile apps ( iPhone , BBerry , etc ) are going to continue to work .
If so then there is at least one way to get around this cap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious if the old mobile apps (iPhone, BBerry, etc) are going to continue to work.
If so then there is at least one way to get around this cap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622373</id>
	<title>Re:Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>************* and the 3 digits on the back are ***</p><p>Gasp! slashdot turns the cc digits into *s zomg!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * * * * * * * * * * * and the 3 digits on the back are * * * Gasp !
slashdot turns the cc digits into * s zomg !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>************* and the 3 digits on the back are ***Gasp!
slashdot turns the cc digits into *s zomg!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622843</id>
	<title>Pandora sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as music sites go, Pandora's functionality is one of the most limited out there.</p><p>Sites like deezer.com or songza.com offer the ability both to search for all the individual songs you want and create a playlist + it allows you to create a random radio.</p><p>Pandora is full of itself if it think it's worth any money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as music sites go , Pandora 's functionality is one of the most limited out there.Sites like deezer.com or songza.com offer the ability both to search for all the individual songs you want and create a playlist + it allows you to create a random radio.Pandora is full of itself if it think it 's worth any money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as music sites go, Pandora's functionality is one of the most limited out there.Sites like deezer.com or songza.com offer the ability both to search for all the individual songs you want and create a playlist + it allows you to create a random radio.Pandora is full of itself if it think it's worth any money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623507</id>
	<title>Re:price is right, now how do I hand them a dollar</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1247072460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most likely, your bank/CC company would allow you to generate one time fixed limit temporary CC number - the best way to limit your exposure. And I use it all the time whenever I do not trust the other party fully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely , your bank/CC company would allow you to generate one time fixed limit temporary CC number - the best way to limit your exposure .
And I use it all the time whenever I do not trust the other party fully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely, your bank/CC company would allow you to generate one time fixed limit temporary CC number - the best way to limit your exposure.
And I use it all the time whenever I do not trust the other party fully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28687515</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247603400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Depends on the format, too, though.I did some totally subjective comparisons a while back, and found that:On my computer, with my horrible onboard sound... these formats and bitrates sound the same:3GPP AAC+ encoded @ 28kbitogg vorbis encoded @ 32kbitlame mp3 encoded @ 72kbit abrMP3 has great fidelity at high bitrates, but it just wasn't made to scale well to lower bitrates, often employed in streaming.44kbit AAC(3GPP AAC+ doesn't seem to go beyond that?) sounds very good to my ear. My results are completel</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the format , too , though.I did some totally subjective comparisons a while back , and found that : On my computer , with my horrible onboard sound... these formats and bitrates sound the same : 3GPP AAC + encoded @ 28kbitogg vorbis encoded @ 32kbitlame mp3 encoded @ 72kbit abrMP3 has great fidelity at high bitrates , but it just was n't made to scale well to lower bitrates , often employed in streaming.44kbit AAC ( 3GPP AAC + does n't seem to go beyond that ?
) sounds very good to my ear .
My results are completel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the format, too, though.I did some totally subjective comparisons a while back, and found that:On my computer, with my horrible onboard sound... these formats and bitrates sound the same:3GPP AAC+ encoded @ 28kbitogg vorbis encoded @ 32kbitlame mp3 encoded @ 72kbit abrMP3 has great fidelity at high bitrates, but it just wasn't made to scale well to lower bitrates, often employed in streaming.44kbit AAC(3GPP AAC+ doesn't seem to go beyond that?
) sounds very good to my ear.
My results are completel
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623139</id>
	<title>Re:time to sign up for another account</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247071080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you get that much value out of the service why not just pay the $1/month?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you get that much value out of the service why not just pay the $ 1/month ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you get that much value out of the service why not just pay the $1/month?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624565</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>shmlco</author>
	<datestamp>1247076240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a strict point of view, anyone who "downloads" music off a P2P network is automatically guilty of illegal distribution as well, as while your computer is  downloading it's also uploading and distributing pieces of that file to other users on the same network at the same time. It's the nature of the beast.</p><p>And yes, you can "leech", but that's considered unethical (grin) by those who steal such things...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a strict point of view , anyone who " downloads " music off a P2P network is automatically guilty of illegal distribution as well , as while your computer is downloading it 's also uploading and distributing pieces of that file to other users on the same network at the same time .
It 's the nature of the beast.And yes , you can " leech " , but that 's considered unethical ( grin ) by those who steal such things.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a strict point of view, anyone who "downloads" music off a P2P network is automatically guilty of illegal distribution as well, as while your computer is  downloading it's also uploading and distributing pieces of that file to other users on the same network at the same time.
It's the nature of the beast.And yes, you can "leech", but that's considered unethical (grin) by those who steal such things...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623491</id>
	<title>Re:Have you read this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content\_selector=piracy\_tips\_for\_consumers" title="riaa.com" rel="nofollow">Piracy Tips for Consumers</a> [riaa.com], I was reading the &quot;royalty rates&quot; link and saw that the RIAA was behind it, so I went to their website and found this jewel.</p><p>Of note: Watch for Compilations that are &quot;Too Good to Be True&quot;. Why are they too good to be true? If customers would want that compilation why haven't you sold it to them?</p><p>Even better: Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.  It is a freaking digital copy, it is the exact same quality!  Does anyone actually believe this stuff?</p></div><p>Regardless of my hate on the RIAA, "Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent," is actually true. There are lots of bad rips all over the place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Piracy Tips for Consumers [ riaa.com ] , I was reading the " royalty rates " link and saw that the RIAA was behind it , so I went to their website and found this jewel.Of note : Watch for Compilations that are " Too Good to Be True " .
Why are they too good to be true ?
If customers would want that compilation why have n't you sold it to them ? Even better : Trust your ear : The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent .
It is a freaking digital copy , it is the exact same quality !
Does anyone actually believe this stuff ? Regardless of my hate on the RIAA , " Trust your ear : The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent , " is actually true .
There are lots of bad rips all over the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Piracy Tips for Consumers [riaa.com], I was reading the "royalty rates" link and saw that the RIAA was behind it, so I went to their website and found this jewel.Of note: Watch for Compilations that are "Too Good to Be True".
Why are they too good to be true?
If customers would want that compilation why haven't you sold it to them?Even better: Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent.
It is a freaking digital copy, it is the exact same quality!
Does anyone actually believe this stuff?Regardless of my hate on the RIAA, "Trust your ear: The sound quality of pirate CDs is often poor or inconsistent," is actually true.
There are lots of bad rips all over the place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307</id>
	<title>lower royalty rates negotiated</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1247068260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This comes on the same day that an agreement <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/technology/internet/08radio.html" title="nytimes.com">was announced</a> [nytimes.com] that lowers royalty payments for internet radio stations. The original plan called for royalties of 0.19 cents per streamed song. The new plan sets royalties for large stations at 25\% of revenue or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.14 cents/song (whichever is greater). Small stations will pay $25,000/yr or 12-14\% of revenue (whichever is greater). It sounds like it's still going to be impossible for individuals to set up stations as a hobby, which I guess it was practical to do at one point, but I'm guessing that a lot of college radio stations might find it cheaper to pay the $25k/yr than to maintain an FM broadcast station.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comes on the same day that an agreement was announced [ nytimes.com ] that lowers royalty payments for internet radio stations .
The original plan called for royalties of 0.19 cents per streamed song .
The new plan sets royalties for large stations at 25 \ % of revenue or .14 cents/song ( whichever is greater ) .
Small stations will pay $ 25,000/yr or 12-14 \ % of revenue ( whichever is greater ) .
It sounds like it 's still going to be impossible for individuals to set up stations as a hobby , which I guess it was practical to do at one point , but I 'm guessing that a lot of college radio stations might find it cheaper to pay the $ 25k/yr than to maintain an FM broadcast station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comes on the same day that an agreement was announced [nytimes.com] that lowers royalty payments for internet radio stations.
The original plan called for royalties of 0.19 cents per streamed song.
The new plan sets royalties for large stations at 25\% of revenue or .14 cents/song (whichever is greater).
Small stations will pay $25,000/yr or 12-14\% of revenue (whichever is greater).
It sounds like it's still going to be impossible for individuals to set up stations as a hobby, which I guess it was practical to do at one point, but I'm guessing that a lot of college radio stations might find it cheaper to pay the $25k/yr than to maintain an FM broadcast station.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622691</id>
	<title>Re:I guess</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is too much. Why should I have to pay for an internet version when the RF version of the same service is free? I would sooner download and stream from my own server.</p></div><p>Maybe because sending bits over the internet costs money on a per-bit/per-user basis while spraying RF signals out of an antenna is a flat fee no matter how many people are listening (no matter how much you're about to whine about how unfair that is)?</p><p>No, wait, I forgot, it's the glorious Age of Entitlement.  "I want this for free; therefore, I <b>deserve</b> it for free, reality and economy be damned!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is too much .
Why should I have to pay for an internet version when the RF version of the same service is free ?
I would sooner download and stream from my own server.Maybe because sending bits over the internet costs money on a per-bit/per-user basis while spraying RF signals out of an antenna is a flat fee no matter how many people are listening ( no matter how much you 're about to whine about how unfair that is ) ? No , wait , I forgot , it 's the glorious Age of Entitlement .
" I want this for free ; therefore , I deserve it for free , reality and economy be damned !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is too much.
Why should I have to pay for an internet version when the RF version of the same service is free?
I would sooner download and stream from my own server.Maybe because sending bits over the internet costs money on a per-bit/per-user basis while spraying RF signals out of an antenna is a flat fee no matter how many people are listening (no matter how much you're about to whine about how unfair that is)?No, wait, I forgot, it's the glorious Age of Entitlement.
"I want this for free; therefore, I deserve it for free, reality and economy be damned!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622621</id>
	<title>Re:Cost per transaction?</title>
	<author>mathx314</author>
	<datestamp>1247069280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that $0.04 or $0.40?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that $ 0.04 or $ 0.40 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that $0.04 or $0.40?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622599</id>
	<title>still free, slightly more annoyingly so</title>
	<author>riishell</author>
	<datestamp>1247069220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm over-looking something here, but couldn't you just create additional free accounts?  Yes, I'm that cheap...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm over-looking something here , but could n't you just create additional free accounts ?
Yes , I 'm that cheap.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm over-looking something here, but couldn't you just create additional free accounts?
Yes, I'm that cheap...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622703</id>
	<title>Say what again</title>
	<author>jackspenn</author>
	<datestamp>1247069520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>one-time fee of $0.99 to resume unlimited listening to music for a month</p></div><p>
How is it you pay a one time fee for a monthly service?
<br> <br>
Should it be:
</p><ul>
<li>A $0.99 fee per each month of music
<br>
-- OR --</li>
<li>A one time fee of $0.99 for unlimited music</li>
</ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one-time fee of $ 0.99 to resume unlimited listening to music for a month How is it you pay a one time fee for a monthly service ?
Should it be : A $ 0.99 fee per each month of music -- OR -- A one time fee of $ 0.99 for unlimited music</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one-time fee of $0.99 to resume unlimited listening to music for a month
How is it you pay a one time fee for a monthly service?
Should it be:

A $0.99 fee per each month of music

-- OR --
A one time fee of $0.99 for unlimited music

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624471</id>
	<title>Re:lower royalty rates negotiated</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247075940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; 25\% of revenue or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.14 cents/song (whichever is greater)</p><p>I would love to hear the logic behind this structuring. Why is 25\% of revenue OK for large stations, but for small stations with low revenue, they must pay a fixed fee?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; 25 \ % of revenue or .14 cents/song ( whichever is greater ) I would love to hear the logic behind this structuring .
Why is 25 \ % of revenue OK for large stations , but for small stations with low revenue , they must pay a fixed fee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; 25\% of revenue or .14 cents/song (whichever is greater)I would love to hear the logic behind this structuring.
Why is 25\% of revenue OK for large stations, but for small stations with low revenue, they must pay a fixed fee?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621895</id>
	<title>non-us?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1247066760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that they have payment model instructed too, why not expand it outside US aswell? Last.FM radio has something similar too, they had to start charging non-US/CA/UK users because there wasn't enough advertisers in other countries to make it profitable. That being said, we have that awesome <a href="http://www.spotify.com/en/" title="spotify.com">Spotify</a> [spotify.com] here, but I'm sure there would be lots of old non-US Pandora users that would pay a little to listen to it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that they have payment model instructed too , why not expand it outside US aswell ?
Last.FM radio has something similar too , they had to start charging non-US/CA/UK users because there was n't enough advertisers in other countries to make it profitable .
That being said , we have that awesome Spotify [ spotify.com ] here , but I 'm sure there would be lots of old non-US Pandora users that would pay a little to listen to it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that they have payment model instructed too, why not expand it outside US aswell?
Last.FM radio has something similar too, they had to start charging non-US/CA/UK users because there wasn't enough advertisers in other countries to make it profitable.
That being said, we have that awesome Spotify [spotify.com] here, but I'm sure there would be lots of old non-US Pandora users that would pay a little to listen to it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623689</id>
	<title>Spotify</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247073120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For folks who can't access Pandora, have a look at <a href="http://www.spotify.com/en/" title="spotify.com">Spotify</a> [spotify.com]. It's a similar idea to Pandora, but gives you more control over which tracks you listen to. I don't like it's "artist radio" as much as I like Pandora's stations/channels, but building playlists more than makes up for it. It runs in a client rather than a browser; works perfectly for me on Mac (10.4) and Kubuntu 8.10 (running inside WINE).

<br> <br>The one con relative to Pandora is that Spotify has audio ads; I've never counted but it's something like one 10 second ad every 10 songs. Not perfect, but much better than listening to a real radio station. On the upside, you can pay for a day or a month of ad-free listening.
<br> <br>
There's also <a href="http://www.magnatune.com/" title="magnatune.com">Magnatune</a> [magnatune.com] which is a good source of DRM-free independant music. Not great as a radio station, as the free streaming is very basic, but I've got some good music from them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For folks who ca n't access Pandora , have a look at Spotify [ spotify.com ] .
It 's a similar idea to Pandora , but gives you more control over which tracks you listen to .
I do n't like it 's " artist radio " as much as I like Pandora 's stations/channels , but building playlists more than makes up for it .
It runs in a client rather than a browser ; works perfectly for me on Mac ( 10.4 ) and Kubuntu 8.10 ( running inside WINE ) .
The one con relative to Pandora is that Spotify has audio ads ; I 've never counted but it 's something like one 10 second ad every 10 songs .
Not perfect , but much better than listening to a real radio station .
On the upside , you can pay for a day or a month of ad-free listening .
There 's also Magnatune [ magnatune.com ] which is a good source of DRM-free independant music .
Not great as a radio station , as the free streaming is very basic , but I 've got some good music from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For folks who can't access Pandora, have a look at Spotify [spotify.com].
It's a similar idea to Pandora, but gives you more control over which tracks you listen to.
I don't like it's "artist radio" as much as I like Pandora's stations/channels, but building playlists more than makes up for it.
It runs in a client rather than a browser; works perfectly for me on Mac (10.4) and Kubuntu 8.10 (running inside WINE).
The one con relative to Pandora is that Spotify has audio ads; I've never counted but it's something like one 10 second ad every 10 songs.
Not perfect, but much better than listening to a real radio station.
On the upside, you can pay for a day or a month of ad-free listening.
There's also Magnatune [magnatune.com] which is a good source of DRM-free independant music.
Not great as a radio station, as the free streaming is very basic, but I've got some good music from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622363</id>
	<title>Re:Skip as many songs as we want?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247068440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had used the service for a time, mind you, I say HAD. Most of the music -I- prefer the service had either never heard of before, or was unavailable for other reasons. I had better luck on Google or Youtube, in locating what I wanted to listen to. It's been months since I<br>
&nbsp; used Pandora, and to be honest, I can't really say I miss it all that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had used the service for a time , mind you , I say HAD .
Most of the music -I- prefer the service had either never heard of before , or was unavailable for other reasons .
I had better luck on Google or Youtube , in locating what I wanted to listen to .
It 's been months since I   used Pandora , and to be honest , I ca n't really say I miss it all that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had used the service for a time, mind you, I say HAD.
Most of the music -I- prefer the service had either never heard of before, or was unavailable for other reasons.
I had better luck on Google or Youtube, in locating what I wanted to listen to.
It's been months since I
  used Pandora, and to be honest, I can't really say I miss it all that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28632103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28631243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_08_1339224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622763
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28626767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625703
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622875
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28630073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28624275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28631243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28632103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28628995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28625153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28627593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28621929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_08_1339224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28622333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_08_1339224.28623139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
