<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_2331236</id>
	<title>Hulu May Begin Charging For Content Next Year</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256313720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DJLuc1d tips news that Chase Carey, president and COO of News Corp., has said that Hulu may <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFFLwGfPgLLhFDm6nAiZNTzdp4RwD9BGE6S06">begin charging for its streamed video content as early as next year</a>. He said at a recent conference that the free-to-air model is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/23/television-television">not sustainable in the long-term</a>. The Atlantic takes a look at <a href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/paying\_for\_hulu.php">several business models Hulu could employ</a> and wonders how their current advertising system would be involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DJLuc1d tips news that Chase Carey , president and COO of News Corp. , has said that Hulu may begin charging for its streamed video content as early as next year .
He said at a recent conference that the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term .
The Atlantic takes a look at several business models Hulu could employ and wonders how their current advertising system would be involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DJLuc1d tips news that Chase Carey, president and COO of News Corp., has said that Hulu may begin charging for its streamed video content as early as next year.
He said at a recent conference that the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term.
The Atlantic takes a look at several business models Hulu could employ and wonders how their current advertising system would be involved.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854405</id>
	<title>I'd pay for Hulu...</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1256321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd pay for Hulu if it was a very reasonable price with a very good selection of stuff, with no or very few advertisements.  If it has a good selection there's STILL no reason to buy cable when you can watch what and when you want to watch.  In my opinion, Cable Television as we know it isn't going to be sustainable in the long term, either, because people are increasingly DVRing and downloading and stuff nowadays anyway and the old advertisement scheme just isn't as viable as it once was.  Cable emerged and appeared the way it did because the internet was not really fully realized the way it is now and certainly not with today's bandwidth.  The old cable network model is slowly on the way out.  Hulu at cost, a decent cost, will be a bargain over the old cable networks still because I can watch any (available) episode of, say, Babylon 5 when I want, where I want, without having to wait for network showings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd pay for Hulu if it was a very reasonable price with a very good selection of stuff , with no or very few advertisements .
If it has a good selection there 's STILL no reason to buy cable when you can watch what and when you want to watch .
In my opinion , Cable Television as we know it is n't going to be sustainable in the long term , either , because people are increasingly DVRing and downloading and stuff nowadays anyway and the old advertisement scheme just is n't as viable as it once was .
Cable emerged and appeared the way it did because the internet was not really fully realized the way it is now and certainly not with today 's bandwidth .
The old cable network model is slowly on the way out .
Hulu at cost , a decent cost , will be a bargain over the old cable networks still because I can watch any ( available ) episode of , say , Babylon 5 when I want , where I want , without having to wait for network showings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd pay for Hulu if it was a very reasonable price with a very good selection of stuff, with no or very few advertisements.
If it has a good selection there's STILL no reason to buy cable when you can watch what and when you want to watch.
In my opinion, Cable Television as we know it isn't going to be sustainable in the long term, either, because people are increasingly DVRing and downloading and stuff nowadays anyway and the old advertisement scheme just isn't as viable as it once was.
Cable emerged and appeared the way it did because the internet was not really fully realized the way it is now and certainly not with today's bandwidth.
The old cable network model is slowly on the way out.
Hulu at cost, a decent cost, will be a bargain over the old cable networks still because I can watch any (available) episode of, say, Babylon 5 when I want, where I want, without having to wait for network showings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855071</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1256380020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.</p></div><p>Maybe.  I'd pay for it, if it was a reasonable price and had no commercials.  First time I saw a commercial, I'd drop the service.  Increasingly, there is noplace you go without being blasted by ads... it's worth a few dollars to me to be able to get some entertainment without it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>new headline : Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.Maybe .
I 'd pay for it , if it was a reasonable price and had no commercials .
First time I saw a commercial , I 'd drop the service .
Increasingly , there is noplace you go without being blasted by ads... it 's worth a few dollars to me to be able to get some entertainment without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.Maybe.
I'd pay for it, if it was a reasonable price and had no commercials.
First time I saw a commercial, I'd drop the service.
Increasingly, there is noplace you go without being blasted by ads... it's worth a few dollars to me to be able to get some entertainment without it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854977</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1256377920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>New headline: Bittorrent may begin gaining users next year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>New headline : Bittorrent may begin gaining users next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New headline: Bittorrent may begin gaining users next year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855225</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256382960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when cable was like only 20 channels?</p><p>HBO, Cinemax and all the movie channels still offer the no ads constant movies.</p><p>Cable also offer VideoOnDemand unlike Satellite, VOD is great if you have never tried it than it basically makes the DVR obsolete.</p><p>DVR's in my opinion are a dead end in the future, when all the content will be stored by the provider and accessed online.</p><p>Hulu should work something out with MS/Apple(Itunes) to get something going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when cable was like only 20 channels ? HBO , Cinemax and all the movie channels still offer the no ads constant movies.Cable also offer VideoOnDemand unlike Satellite , VOD is great if you have never tried it than it basically makes the DVR obsolete.DVR 's in my opinion are a dead end in the future , when all the content will be stored by the provider and accessed online.Hulu should work something out with MS/Apple ( Itunes ) to get something going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when cable was like only 20 channels?HBO, Cinemax and all the movie channels still offer the no ads constant movies.Cable also offer VideoOnDemand unlike Satellite, VOD is great if you have never tried it than it basically makes the DVR obsolete.DVR's in my opinion are a dead end in the future, when all the content will be stored by the provider and accessed online.Hulu should work something out with MS/Apple(Itunes) to get something going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854303</id>
	<title>Quality is an issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The heavily compressed low res streams are okay for free/limited commercial but if they expect to charge for similar quality content even if it's current movies uncut I think I'll pass. Now if they offer things I can't get anywhere else especially older shows and movies that aren't available then I'd consider it for a reasonable cost. Don't offer what everyone else is just lower quality think outside the box and offer what isn't available. Fans love rare and hard to find but offering yet another way to get movies only a paid service then you are selling apples in an apple orchard. If they can provide premium cable shows rebroadcast for a reasonable rate uncut they might have something. The better ones are available in box sets but there are older ones that aren't available. Everyone is fighting for the same mainstream market so it's over served already. Better to break new ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The heavily compressed low res streams are okay for free/limited commercial but if they expect to charge for similar quality content even if it 's current movies uncut I think I 'll pass .
Now if they offer things I ca n't get anywhere else especially older shows and movies that are n't available then I 'd consider it for a reasonable cost .
Do n't offer what everyone else is just lower quality think outside the box and offer what is n't available .
Fans love rare and hard to find but offering yet another way to get movies only a paid service then you are selling apples in an apple orchard .
If they can provide premium cable shows rebroadcast for a reasonable rate uncut they might have something .
The better ones are available in box sets but there are older ones that are n't available .
Everyone is fighting for the same mainstream market so it 's over served already .
Better to break new ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The heavily compressed low res streams are okay for free/limited commercial but if they expect to charge for similar quality content even if it's current movies uncut I think I'll pass.
Now if they offer things I can't get anywhere else especially older shows and movies that aren't available then I'd consider it for a reasonable cost.
Don't offer what everyone else is just lower quality think outside the box and offer what isn't available.
Fans love rare and hard to find but offering yet another way to get movies only a paid service then you are selling apples in an apple orchard.
If they can provide premium cable shows rebroadcast for a reasonable rate uncut they might have something.
The better ones are available in box sets but there are older ones that aren't available.
Everyone is fighting for the same mainstream market so it's over served already.
Better to break new ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854377</id>
	<title>Not true.</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1256320800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true, almost all around</p><p>First of all, I don't remember <i>ever</i> "no ads" being the selling point of cable.  When I first saw cable back around 1979, it was because the transmission towers were so far away from our rural neighborhood in a valley that we couldn't get a signal with an antenna.  Literally nothing.  "Cable" to us meant that we got to pay for what everyone else was watching: broadcast television.</p><p>Second of all, when they did start adding a few paltry non-broadcast stations to cable television, I remember ads from the outset.  Oh, sure, you had the "premium" stations like HBO that had no ads, but guess what--they were <i>really</i> expensive, and we didn't get those channels, and we watched ads.  Fewer than today, granted, but that was true even of broadcast television and is a trend across the board.</p><p>Third of all, I don't see us ever going back to the way things were, with big content providers having an absolute lock on when, where, and how you watch big content.  Too many genies are out of too many bottles for that to happen.  The providers now have two excruciatingly difficult competitors to face: media pirates and entertainment alternatives.</p><p>Yes, as much as we like to pretend that media pirates don't have that big an impact on the industry, they really, <i>really</i> do.  Fortunately, in many ways, it's positive.  I mean, think about it, do you <i>really</i> think that a service like Hulu would exist today if big media didn't have to contend with people downloading their stuff for free?  Their value added is no longer the fact that they have complete control over the pipeline.  It's all about ease of use and legitimacy.  If they stop providing that value added service, then people will still simply stop using their service.</p><p>Added to this pressure is the fact that the times they are a-changin'.  Back when I was little, we didn't have the Internet.  We really didn't have many good video games.  (I grew up in the Atari 2600 age.)  The television was <i>THE</i> home entertainment medium.  At night, it was either watch television or sit around talking to your parents.  (Fun.)</p><p>But now with all of our instant communication technology, the Internet as our kids' playground, and gaming systems that are more hi-tech than the most expensive supercomputers I grew up on, television has a fraction of the relevance that it once did.  Look around, man.  Between cell phones, the Internet, their World of Warcraft accounts, and their Xboxes, a lot of kids don't even watch television!</p><p>Do you <i>really</i> think that people will be paying for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads?  I don't.  I think that they'll just find something more interesting to do, some alternative that we didn't grow up with, thus the reason we were so willing to put up with that crap.  Big media will either adjust, with services like Hulu, or die.  And they know that, so please, finger off the panic button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true , almost all aroundFirst of all , I do n't remember ever " no ads " being the selling point of cable .
When I first saw cable back around 1979 , it was because the transmission towers were so far away from our rural neighborhood in a valley that we could n't get a signal with an antenna .
Literally nothing .
" Cable " to us meant that we got to pay for what everyone else was watching : broadcast television.Second of all , when they did start adding a few paltry non-broadcast stations to cable television , I remember ads from the outset .
Oh , sure , you had the " premium " stations like HBO that had no ads , but guess what--they were really expensive , and we did n't get those channels , and we watched ads .
Fewer than today , granted , but that was true even of broadcast television and is a trend across the board.Third of all , I do n't see us ever going back to the way things were , with big content providers having an absolute lock on when , where , and how you watch big content .
Too many genies are out of too many bottles for that to happen .
The providers now have two excruciatingly difficult competitors to face : media pirates and entertainment alternatives.Yes , as much as we like to pretend that media pirates do n't have that big an impact on the industry , they really , really do .
Fortunately , in many ways , it 's positive .
I mean , think about it , do you really think that a service like Hulu would exist today if big media did n't have to contend with people downloading their stuff for free ?
Their value added is no longer the fact that they have complete control over the pipeline .
It 's all about ease of use and legitimacy .
If they stop providing that value added service , then people will still simply stop using their service.Added to this pressure is the fact that the times they are a-changin' .
Back when I was little , we did n't have the Internet .
We really did n't have many good video games .
( I grew up in the Atari 2600 age .
) The television was THE home entertainment medium .
At night , it was either watch television or sit around talking to your parents .
( Fun. ) But now with all of our instant communication technology , the Internet as our kids ' playground , and gaming systems that are more hi-tech than the most expensive supercomputers I grew up on , television has a fraction of the relevance that it once did .
Look around , man .
Between cell phones , the Internet , their World of Warcraft accounts , and their Xboxes , a lot of kids do n't even watch television ! Do you really think that people will be paying for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads ?
I do n't .
I think that they 'll just find something more interesting to do , some alternative that we did n't grow up with , thus the reason we were so willing to put up with that crap .
Big media will either adjust , with services like Hulu , or die .
And they know that , so please , finger off the panic button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true, almost all aroundFirst of all, I don't remember ever "no ads" being the selling point of cable.
When I first saw cable back around 1979, it was because the transmission towers were so far away from our rural neighborhood in a valley that we couldn't get a signal with an antenna.
Literally nothing.
"Cable" to us meant that we got to pay for what everyone else was watching: broadcast television.Second of all, when they did start adding a few paltry non-broadcast stations to cable television, I remember ads from the outset.
Oh, sure, you had the "premium" stations like HBO that had no ads, but guess what--they were really expensive, and we didn't get those channels, and we watched ads.
Fewer than today, granted, but that was true even of broadcast television and is a trend across the board.Third of all, I don't see us ever going back to the way things were, with big content providers having an absolute lock on when, where, and how you watch big content.
Too many genies are out of too many bottles for that to happen.
The providers now have two excruciatingly difficult competitors to face: media pirates and entertainment alternatives.Yes, as much as we like to pretend that media pirates don't have that big an impact on the industry, they really, really do.
Fortunately, in many ways, it's positive.
I mean, think about it, do you really think that a service like Hulu would exist today if big media didn't have to contend with people downloading their stuff for free?
Their value added is no longer the fact that they have complete control over the pipeline.
It's all about ease of use and legitimacy.
If they stop providing that value added service, then people will still simply stop using their service.Added to this pressure is the fact that the times they are a-changin'.
Back when I was little, we didn't have the Internet.
We really didn't have many good video games.
(I grew up in the Atari 2600 age.
)  The television was THE home entertainment medium.
At night, it was either watch television or sit around talking to your parents.
(Fun.)But now with all of our instant communication technology, the Internet as our kids' playground, and gaming systems that are more hi-tech than the most expensive supercomputers I grew up on, television has a fraction of the relevance that it once did.
Look around, man.
Between cell phones, the Internet, their World of Warcraft accounts, and their Xboxes, a lot of kids don't even watch television!Do you really think that people will be paying for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads?
I don't.
I think that they'll just find something more interesting to do, some alternative that we didn't grow up with, thus the reason we were so willing to put up with that crap.
Big media will either adjust, with services like Hulu, or die.
And they know that, so please, finger off the panic button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861529</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1256397060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just rationalizing it, Hulu doesn't have that many commercials in a show. Last I checked it was like 2 minutes of commercials tops for a typical episode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just rationalizing it , Hulu does n't have that many commercials in a show .
Last I checked it was like 2 minutes of commercials tops for a typical episode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just rationalizing it, Hulu doesn't have that many commercials in a show.
Last I checked it was like 2 minutes of commercials tops for a typical episode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854317</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, the only reason I ever watched hulu was because it was free.  The minute it goes to a pay site I'll be back to torrenting everything.  It's really their loss, not mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , the only reason I ever watched hulu was because it was free .
The minute it goes to a pay site I 'll be back to torrenting everything .
It 's really their loss , not mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, the only reason I ever watched hulu was because it was free.
The minute it goes to a pay site I'll be back to torrenting everything.
It's really their loss, not mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854161</id>
	<title>dead dog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And their user base drops to 3 men and a dead dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And their user base drops to 3 men and a dead dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And their user base drops to 3 men and a dead dog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862413</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>samexner</author>
	<datestamp>1256407980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>loosing viewers</p></div><p>Maybe they should tighten them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>loosing viewersMaybe they should tighten them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>loosing viewersMaybe they should tighten them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854297</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.</p></div><p>What you say is totally correct, with the one minor detail that I would change *quality* to *softcore porn*.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HBO has proven people are happy to pay for * quality * programming.What you say is totally correct , with the one minor detail that I would change * quality * to * softcore porn * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.What you say is totally correct, with the one minor detail that I would change *quality* to *softcore porn*.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854779</id>
	<title>huh,</title>
	<author>user4574</author>
	<datestamp>1256414880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the NBC, ABC, CBS, SyFy, WB, etc. websites are going to jump to a subscription model too. That's where Hulu gets the vast majority of its TV content, including its classic shows. Hulu even adds and removes their content on the same schedules. So far as I can tell, the only real service Hulu provides seems to be the convenience of having all of that in one place. I can put up with the ads for that convenience, but I don't think I'd care to pay for it, especially if they keep the ads.
<br> <br>
Also, considering all the many articles I've read over the past year proclaiming the epic scale of Hulu's viewership, and how an episode of <i>The Simpsons</i> is now worth considerably more advertising dollars on Hulu than it is on Fox, I have a hard time seeing how advertiser-supported content (AKA the tried and tested model of the last sixty years) is suddenly no longer viable. Considering the scale of their audience, and the fact that they're not too far from the only game in town for centralization of that type of content, Hulu should be able to push its ad revenues up to a "sustainable rate" pretty easily without dinging its viewers. But then, I guess this is News Corp. we're talking about...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the NBC , ABC , CBS , SyFy , WB , etc .
websites are going to jump to a subscription model too .
That 's where Hulu gets the vast majority of its TV content , including its classic shows .
Hulu even adds and removes their content on the same schedules .
So far as I can tell , the only real service Hulu provides seems to be the convenience of having all of that in one place .
I can put up with the ads for that convenience , but I do n't think I 'd care to pay for it , especially if they keep the ads .
Also , considering all the many articles I 've read over the past year proclaiming the epic scale of Hulu 's viewership , and how an episode of The Simpsons is now worth considerably more advertising dollars on Hulu than it is on Fox , I have a hard time seeing how advertiser-supported content ( AKA the tried and tested model of the last sixty years ) is suddenly no longer viable .
Considering the scale of their audience , and the fact that they 're not too far from the only game in town for centralization of that type of content , Hulu should be able to push its ad revenues up to a " sustainable rate " pretty easily without dinging its viewers .
But then , I guess this is News Corp. we 're talking about.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the NBC, ABC, CBS, SyFy, WB, etc.
websites are going to jump to a subscription model too.
That's where Hulu gets the vast majority of its TV content, including its classic shows.
Hulu even adds and removes their content on the same schedules.
So far as I can tell, the only real service Hulu provides seems to be the convenience of having all of that in one place.
I can put up with the ads for that convenience, but I don't think I'd care to pay for it, especially if they keep the ads.
Also, considering all the many articles I've read over the past year proclaiming the epic scale of Hulu's viewership, and how an episode of The Simpsons is now worth considerably more advertising dollars on Hulu than it is on Fox, I have a hard time seeing how advertiser-supported content (AKA the tried and tested model of the last sixty years) is suddenly no longer viable.
Considering the scale of their audience, and the fact that they're not too far from the only game in town for centralization of that type of content, Hulu should be able to push its ad revenues up to a "sustainable rate" pretty easily without dinging its viewers.
But then, I guess this is News Corp. we're talking about...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854175</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Chase Cary has come to the same conclusion all the failed dot com companies figured out 10 years ago... Not that surprising, all he had to do was look back @ companies like Netzero, FreePC, WinFire, etc...</p><p>Of course, this could just be a cop-out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Chase Cary has come to the same conclusion all the failed dot com companies figured out 10 years ago... Not that surprising , all he had to do was look back @ companies like Netzero , FreePC , WinFire , etc...Of course , this could just be a cop-out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Chase Cary has come to the same conclusion all the failed dot com companies figured out 10 years ago... Not that surprising, all he had to do was look back @ companies like Netzero, FreePC, WinFire, etc...Of course, this could just be a cop-out...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856887</id>
	<title>Yes, it's true...</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1256401680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First of all, I don't remember ever "no ads" being the selling point of cable.</p></div><p>Just because you don't remember it that way, it did not happen like that?</p><p>I remember it, and the 'no commercials' was THE marketing hype for cable. It only lasted a year or two, but it was definitely the angle they used to market this 'new cable service' back in the beginning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I do n't remember ever " no ads " being the selling point of cable.Just because you do n't remember it that way , it did not happen like that ? I remember it , and the 'no commercials ' was THE marketing hype for cable .
It only lasted a year or two , but it was definitely the angle they used to market this 'new cable service ' back in the beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I don't remember ever "no ads" being the selling point of cable.Just because you don't remember it that way, it did not happen like that?I remember it, and the 'no commercials' was THE marketing hype for cable.
It only lasted a year or two, but it was definitely the angle they used to market this 'new cable service' back in the beginning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856527</id>
	<title>Two different media, both with a problem...</title>
	<author>adageable</author>
	<datestamp>1256398260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem that I see is this: both hulu and traditional cable / satellite have a different, not so fun problem.  You're forced to choose between them.<br>

<br>
Cable TV / Satellite plus a DVR lets you record anything, and then skip the commercials.  The problem is that if you forget to record something, or are recommended to something after the fact, you really can't got get it (the on-demand offerings aren't sufficient, generally, IMHO).<br> <br>

Hulu lets you watch pretty much anything current (within the selection catalog, I realize), but you have to watch short ads while watching it.<br> <br>

In other words, you choose between a limited set of things that you remembered to record (w/o commercial interruption via DVR skipping), or you deal with hulu and short, annoying, highly repetitive interruptions (still better than TV without a DVR, though).<br> <br>

The real question is, how much would you pay for hulu, and would you be able to skip commercials completely for an added, premium price?  I'll say this, there's no way I'd give them a dime if I had to spend ANYTIME watching commercials I couldn't skip.  I already have better than that in my DVR, I'm not trading backward...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem that I see is this : both hulu and traditional cable / satellite have a different , not so fun problem .
You 're forced to choose between them .
Cable TV / Satellite plus a DVR lets you record anything , and then skip the commercials .
The problem is that if you forget to record something , or are recommended to something after the fact , you really ca n't got get it ( the on-demand offerings are n't sufficient , generally , IMHO ) .
Hulu lets you watch pretty much anything current ( within the selection catalog , I realize ) , but you have to watch short ads while watching it .
In other words , you choose between a limited set of things that you remembered to record ( w/o commercial interruption via DVR skipping ) , or you deal with hulu and short , annoying , highly repetitive interruptions ( still better than TV without a DVR , though ) .
The real question is , how much would you pay for hulu , and would you be able to skip commercials completely for an added , premium price ?
I 'll say this , there 's no way I 'd give them a dime if I had to spend ANYTIME watching commercials I could n't skip .
I already have better than that in my DVR , I 'm not trading backward.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem that I see is this: both hulu and traditional cable / satellite have a different, not so fun problem.
You're forced to choose between them.
Cable TV / Satellite plus a DVR lets you record anything, and then skip the commercials.
The problem is that if you forget to record something, or are recommended to something after the fact, you really can't got get it (the on-demand offerings aren't sufficient, generally, IMHO).
Hulu lets you watch pretty much anything current (within the selection catalog, I realize), but you have to watch short ads while watching it.
In other words, you choose between a limited set of things that you remembered to record (w/o commercial interruption via DVR skipping), or you deal with hulu and short, annoying, highly repetitive interruptions (still better than TV without a DVR, though).
The real question is, how much would you pay for hulu, and would you be able to skip commercials completely for an added, premium price?
I'll say this, there's no way I'd give them a dime if I had to spend ANYTIME watching commercials I couldn't skip.
I already have better than that in my DVR, I'm not trading backward...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856447</id>
	<title>hmm</title>
	<author>madcat2c</author>
	<datestamp>1256397540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only they could sell adds at critical points of shows, you know, when they have your undivided attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only they could sell adds at critical points of shows , you know , when they have your undivided attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only they could sell adds at critical points of shows, you know, when they have your undivided attention.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855823</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I pay for what's free on broadcast TV.  I have a subscription with a company that offers DVD rentals by post and online streaming.  And I don't have a TV either.  I'd rather pay a reasonable amount than watch ads.  If Hulu became available outside the USA and charged a sensible amount (if it's just streaming, then it can't be much per episode) and doesn't have ads, then I'd be interested.  There are a few programs from the US that I'd like to watch and which only come here on DVD or on satellite / cable channels.  If I wanted to watch them then I'd have to have a TV license and a cable subscription, which would work out to a good &pound;20-30/month, which is about three times what I pay for DVD rentals and streaming.  If I could stream individual episodes for  a low cost, or a cheap monthly subscription, then I'd do that.  I have absolutely no interest in ad-supported TV, because I value my time more highly than the advertisers do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay for what 's free on broadcast TV .
I have a subscription with a company that offers DVD rentals by post and online streaming .
And I do n't have a TV either .
I 'd rather pay a reasonable amount than watch ads .
If Hulu became available outside the USA and charged a sensible amount ( if it 's just streaming , then it ca n't be much per episode ) and does n't have ads , then I 'd be interested .
There are a few programs from the US that I 'd like to watch and which only come here on DVD or on satellite / cable channels .
If I wanted to watch them then I 'd have to have a TV license and a cable subscription , which would work out to a good   20-30/month , which is about three times what I pay for DVD rentals and streaming .
If I could stream individual episodes for a low cost , or a cheap monthly subscription , then I 'd do that .
I have absolutely no interest in ad-supported TV , because I value my time more highly than the advertisers do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay for what's free on broadcast TV.
I have a subscription with a company that offers DVD rentals by post and online streaming.
And I don't have a TV either.
I'd rather pay a reasonable amount than watch ads.
If Hulu became available outside the USA and charged a sensible amount (if it's just streaming, then it can't be much per episode) and doesn't have ads, then I'd be interested.
There are a few programs from the US that I'd like to watch and which only come here on DVD or on satellite / cable channels.
If I wanted to watch them then I'd have to have a TV license and a cable subscription, which would work out to a good £20-30/month, which is about three times what I pay for DVD rentals and streaming.
If I could stream individual episodes for  a low cost, or a cheap monthly subscription, then I'd do that.
I have absolutely no interest in ad-supported TV, because I value my time more highly than the advertisers do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854151</id>
	<title>Welcome back to Piracy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yarrr, we missed ye while ye watched thar streamin videos...</p><p>Join me down at thepirateba-oh wait..</p><p>aw..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yarrr , we missed ye while ye watched thar streamin videos...Join me down at thepirateba-oh wait..aw. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yarrr, we missed ye while ye watched thar streamin videos...Join me down at thepirateba-oh wait..aw..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854791</id>
	<title>I'd pay for it</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1256415180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Publish the shows to Hulu the shows the same day they air on network TV. Remove the ads. Basically, stop doing everything that currently neuters Hulu.</p><p>Sure, I'd pay for it. Hell, I'm paying $70 a month to watch TV now. Hulu has some of my favorite programing available, on demand. I'd be willing to pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publish the shows to Hulu the shows the same day they air on network TV .
Remove the ads .
Basically , stop doing everything that currently neuters Hulu.Sure , I 'd pay for it .
Hell , I 'm paying $ 70 a month to watch TV now .
Hulu has some of my favorite programing available , on demand .
I 'd be willing to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publish the shows to Hulu the shows the same day they air on network TV.
Remove the ads.
Basically, stop doing everything that currently neuters Hulu.Sure, I'd pay for it.
Hell, I'm paying $70 a month to watch TV now.
Hulu has some of my favorite programing available, on demand.
I'd be willing to pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855005</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>sdnoob</author>
	<datestamp>1256378580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hulu could probably get away with charging (modestly) for certain features, provided that they don't mess with the freeloaders' access or available programming. a couple examples:</p><p>*  give paid users first access to new content.. maybe a 48 hour delay for the freeloaders.</p><p>*  give paid users access to a true high-def feed.. limit the freeloaders to the existing lower-res feeds and 2 channel audio.</p><p>*  no ads for paid users.. but no \_increase\_ in ad minutes per hour for freeloaders.</p><p>but as soon as they start holding content hostage, they'll run into trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hulu could probably get away with charging ( modestly ) for certain features , provided that they do n't mess with the freeloaders ' access or available programming .
a couple examples : * give paid users first access to new content.. maybe a 48 hour delay for the freeloaders .
* give paid users access to a true high-def feed.. limit the freeloaders to the existing lower-res feeds and 2 channel audio .
* no ads for paid users.. but no \ _increase \ _ in ad minutes per hour for freeloaders.but as soon as they start holding content hostage , they 'll run into trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hulu could probably get away with charging (modestly) for certain features, provided that they don't mess with the freeloaders' access or available programming.
a couple examples:*  give paid users first access to new content.. maybe a 48 hour delay for the freeloaders.
*  give paid users access to a true high-def feed.. limit the freeloaders to the existing lower-res feeds and 2 channel audio.
*  no ads for paid users.. but no \_increase\_ in ad minutes per hour for freeloaders.but as soon as they start holding content hostage, they'll run into trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that's the plan?
</p><p>I mean, really, who's going to pay for what's free on broadcast TV? And those few who live without TV (like me) have chosen to live without it, and would never pay for streams.\</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that 's the plan ?
I mean , really , who 's going to pay for what 's free on broadcast TV ?
And those few who live without TV ( like me ) have chosen to live without it , and would never pay for streams. \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that's the plan?
I mean, really, who's going to pay for what's free on broadcast TV?
And those few who live without TV (like me) have chosen to live without it, and would never pay for streams.\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854277</id>
	<title>This contradicts other news on the topic?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1256319360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was on another news site I read:<br><a href="http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/23/hulu-com-backing-away-from-paid-model-remarks/31321" title="tvbythenumbers.com" rel="nofollow">http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/23/hulu-com-backing-away-from-paid-model-remarks/31321</a> [tvbythenumbers.com]</p><p>It's about how they're BACKING AWAY from the paid model.</p><p>Which is correct, do ya think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was on another news site I read : http : //tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/23/hulu-com-backing-away-from-paid-model-remarks/31321 [ tvbythenumbers.com ] It 's about how they 're BACKING AWAY from the paid model.Which is correct , do ya think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was on another news site I read:http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/23/hulu-com-backing-away-from-paid-model-remarks/31321 [tvbythenumbers.com]It's about how they're BACKING AWAY from the paid model.Which is correct, do ya think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854349</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>chaoticgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256320320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See I look at it like this. I can watch on hulu after some time currently. Fox series are like 8 days after the air date, ABC, NBC, and SYFY are like the next day. If they are willing to cut the commercials down by half 4 total commercials becomes 2 total over a 42 minute episode. At the current lengths they have, 30 second ads stay as 30 second ads, 15s stay as 15s, ect. Also have the episodes up within an hour or two the air date on TV then I'd be willing to pay like 5-10/month. But I doubt that will happen so I'm just going to have to torrent them I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>See I look at it like this .
I can watch on hulu after some time currently .
Fox series are like 8 days after the air date , ABC , NBC , and SYFY are like the next day .
If they are willing to cut the commercials down by half 4 total commercials becomes 2 total over a 42 minute episode .
At the current lengths they have , 30 second ads stay as 30 second ads , 15s stay as 15s , ect .
Also have the episodes up within an hour or two the air date on TV then I 'd be willing to pay like 5-10/month .
But I doubt that will happen so I 'm just going to have to torrent them I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See I look at it like this.
I can watch on hulu after some time currently.
Fox series are like 8 days after the air date, ABC, NBC, and SYFY are like the next day.
If they are willing to cut the commercials down by half 4 total commercials becomes 2 total over a 42 minute episode.
At the current lengths they have, 30 second ads stay as 30 second ads, 15s stay as 15s, ect.
Also have the episodes up within an hour or two the air date on TV then I'd be willing to pay like 5-10/month.
But I doubt that will happen so I'm just going to have to torrent them I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854371</id>
	<title>non euphemistic translation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Holy shit, we're fucking screwed' say Hulu execs</p><p>Dateline Saturday October 24, @12:02AM</p><p>Chase Carey, the soon to be replaced president and COO of News Corp, has said that Hulu is a fucking disaster of epic proportions. He said at a recent conference that they aren't making any fucking money, and their numbers were all fucked up in the first place, thanks to their business model being based on the syphillitic ramblings of an LSD tripper.</p><p>The Atlantic pretends to be all sensitive and shit, acting like there is any possible way Hulu can drag it's ass out of the fire before it's burnt to a flaky blackened crisp. It also wonders what the fuck they spent all that money implementing an advertising subsystem for if it wasn't going to bring in any fucking income, for chrissakes they show you a commercial every 5 goddamn minutes on the thing, you'd think somebody would want to pay for that shit.</p><p>Calls from shareholders to reduce executive bonuses were responded to by Carey as 'fucking communist', and followed by a quick, short, sharp shock to the back of the head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Holy shit , we 're fucking screwed ' say Hulu execsDateline Saturday October 24 , @ 12 : 02AMChase Carey , the soon to be replaced president and COO of News Corp , has said that Hulu is a fucking disaster of epic proportions .
He said at a recent conference that they are n't making any fucking money , and their numbers were all fucked up in the first place , thanks to their business model being based on the syphillitic ramblings of an LSD tripper.The Atlantic pretends to be all sensitive and shit , acting like there is any possible way Hulu can drag it 's ass out of the fire before it 's burnt to a flaky blackened crisp .
It also wonders what the fuck they spent all that money implementing an advertising subsystem for if it was n't going to bring in any fucking income , for chrissakes they show you a commercial every 5 goddamn minutes on the thing , you 'd think somebody would want to pay for that shit.Calls from shareholders to reduce executive bonuses were responded to by Carey as 'fucking communist ' , and followed by a quick , short , sharp shock to the back of the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Holy shit, we're fucking screwed' say Hulu execsDateline Saturday October 24, @12:02AMChase Carey, the soon to be replaced president and COO of News Corp, has said that Hulu is a fucking disaster of epic proportions.
He said at a recent conference that they aren't making any fucking money, and their numbers were all fucked up in the first place, thanks to their business model being based on the syphillitic ramblings of an LSD tripper.The Atlantic pretends to be all sensitive and shit, acting like there is any possible way Hulu can drag it's ass out of the fire before it's burnt to a flaky blackened crisp.
It also wonders what the fuck they spent all that money implementing an advertising subsystem for if it wasn't going to bring in any fucking income, for chrissakes they show you a commercial every 5 goddamn minutes on the thing, you'd think somebody would want to pay for that shit.Calls from shareholders to reduce executive bonuses were responded to by Carey as 'fucking communist', and followed by a quick, short, sharp shock to the back of the head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854267</id>
	<title>Fast-forward to 2011</title>
	<author>whterbt</author>
	<datestamp>1256319240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A preview of what hulu.com will look like in 2011:<p><div class="quote"><p> <b>hulu.com</b>
</p><p>This domain is for sale! <a href="http://www.godaddy.com/" title="godaddy.com">Click here to register!</a> [godaddy.com]</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A preview of what hulu.com will look like in 2011 : hulu.com This domain is for sale !
Click here to register !
[ godaddy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A preview of what hulu.com will look like in 2011: hulu.com
This domain is for sale!
Click here to register!
[godaddy.com] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856665</id>
	<title>Re:I'd pay for Hulu...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256399580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I too would pay for Hulu; but the following would need to happen: 1) It would need to become completely commercial free (like cable and movie theaters used to be). 2) Expanded show selection with episodes that don't disappear ( Personally I'd like to see shows that you'd find on History, DIY, HGTV, TLC, PBS, and G4; Extra points for some show involving human tetris.) 3) More volume please (I need to lean in to hear audio on my laptop with it cranked, other stream media though comes across loud and clear at the same settings.</p><p>I'd also be willing to pay say $10.00/mo for movie access if they again expanded their selection. As is the only movies I'll rent are from RedBox where finally I can get a movie for what is worth. If they can make a go of it for $1 a day/movie while paying off the equipment, Hulu should have no problems.</p><p>I don't mean to get off on a rant here but... I don't have cable, I don't even use the broadcast stations in my area, why; 90\% of the content on them, in my opinion, is junk and quite unoriginal. And until I can buy just the channels I want, they can sit and spin because they aren't getting my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too would pay for Hulu ; but the following would need to happen : 1 ) It would need to become completely commercial free ( like cable and movie theaters used to be ) .
2 ) Expanded show selection with episodes that do n't disappear ( Personally I 'd like to see shows that you 'd find on History , DIY , HGTV , TLC , PBS , and G4 ; Extra points for some show involving human tetris .
) 3 ) More volume please ( I need to lean in to hear audio on my laptop with it cranked , other stream media though comes across loud and clear at the same settings.I 'd also be willing to pay say $ 10.00/mo for movie access if they again expanded their selection .
As is the only movies I 'll rent are from RedBox where finally I can get a movie for what is worth .
If they can make a go of it for $ 1 a day/movie while paying off the equipment , Hulu should have no problems.I do n't mean to get off on a rant here but... I do n't have cable , I do n't even use the broadcast stations in my area , why ; 90 \ % of the content on them , in my opinion , is junk and quite unoriginal .
And until I can buy just the channels I want , they can sit and spin because they are n't getting my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too would pay for Hulu; but the following would need to happen: 1) It would need to become completely commercial free (like cable and movie theaters used to be).
2) Expanded show selection with episodes that don't disappear ( Personally I'd like to see shows that you'd find on History, DIY, HGTV, TLC, PBS, and G4; Extra points for some show involving human tetris.
) 3) More volume please (I need to lean in to hear audio on my laptop with it cranked, other stream media though comes across loud and clear at the same settings.I'd also be willing to pay say $10.00/mo for movie access if they again expanded their selection.
As is the only movies I'll rent are from RedBox where finally I can get a movie for what is worth.
If they can make a go of it for $1 a day/movie while paying off the equipment, Hulu should have no problems.I don't mean to get off on a rant here but... I don't have cable, I don't even use the broadcast stations in my area, why; 90\% of the content on them, in my opinion, is junk and quite unoriginal.
And until I can buy just the channels I want, they can sit and spin because they aren't getting my money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856451</id>
	<title>Yay! Here's my money!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256397600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more than happy to pay a fair price for Hulu. Call me crazy,  but I don't expect everything for free.</p><p>The problem is likely to be a minor difference of opinion as to what constitutes "fair".</p><p>I'd probably be willing to pay 25 to 50 cents per show, per hour, provided that I watched more than five or ten minutes of it. Pay as you go. No ads.</p><p>Hulu will probably try to charge $25 to $50 per month, with ads, trying to emulate the cable industry. Which is why I don't have cable. Since I watch only four or five hours per month, this works out to "outrageously expensive" for me.</p><p>Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more than happy to pay a fair price for Hulu .
Call me crazy , but I do n't expect everything for free.The problem is likely to be a minor difference of opinion as to what constitutes " fair " .I 'd probably be willing to pay 25 to 50 cents per show , per hour , provided that I watched more than five or ten minutes of it .
Pay as you go .
No ads.Hulu will probably try to charge $ 25 to $ 50 per month , with ads , trying to emulate the cable industry .
Which is why I do n't have cable .
Since I watch only four or five hours per month , this works out to " outrageously expensive " for me.Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more than happy to pay a fair price for Hulu.
Call me crazy,  but I don't expect everything for free.The problem is likely to be a minor difference of opinion as to what constitutes "fair".I'd probably be willing to pay 25 to 50 cents per show, per hour, provided that I watched more than five or ten minutes of it.
Pay as you go.
No ads.Hulu will probably try to charge $25 to $50 per month, with ads, trying to emulate the cable industry.
Which is why I don't have cable.
Since I watch only four or five hours per month, this works out to "outrageously expensive" for me.Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29860545</id>
	<title>Users Of Hulu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256385780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuel the RIAA and MPAA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuel the RIAA and MPAA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuel the RIAA and MPAA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854183</id>
	<title>Ads or Subs, not both</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1256318040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't mind paying for the two to three shows per week I watch on hulu.com, but then if I have to pay I don't want to sit through ads. Wonder how they'll work that out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind paying for the two to three shows per week I watch on hulu.com , but then if I have to pay I do n't want to sit through ads .
Wonder how they 'll work that out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind paying for the two to three shows per week I watch on hulu.com, but then if I have to pay I don't want to sit through ads.
Wonder how they'll work that out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854763</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Evil Shabazz</author>
	<datestamp>1256414400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have loved Hulu, but I will do one or the other: I will pay a subscription fee <b>or</b> I will watch advertisements during my programming - I will <b>not</b> do both, which is one of the reasons I don't have cable service.  I'm okay with Hulu charging a subscription if the content is ad-free.  But I'm not willing to pay twice for the same content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have loved Hulu , but I will do one or the other : I will pay a subscription fee or I will watch advertisements during my programming - I will not do both , which is one of the reasons I do n't have cable service .
I 'm okay with Hulu charging a subscription if the content is ad-free .
But I 'm not willing to pay twice for the same content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have loved Hulu, but I will do one or the other: I will pay a subscription fee or I will watch advertisements during my programming - I will not do both, which is one of the reasons I don't have cable service.
I'm okay with Hulu charging a subscription if the content is ad-free.
But I'm not willing to pay twice for the same content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856919</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Eighty7</author>
	<datestamp>1256401920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the Hulu management needs to tighten their grip.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the Hulu management needs to tighten their grip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the Hulu management needs to tighten their grip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854867</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>GNious</author>
	<datestamp>1256417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New Headline: Hulu may begin to gain viewers next year, as going pay-per-view allows expansion outside of 5\% of the worlds population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New Headline : Hulu may begin to gain viewers next year , as going pay-per-view allows expansion outside of 5 \ % of the worlds population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New Headline: Hulu may begin to gain viewers next year, as going pay-per-view allows expansion outside of 5\% of the worlds population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856149</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>LtGordon</author>
	<datestamp>1256394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in the same boat: we gave up cable a while back to save money. I used to end up watching a lot of stuff on Hulu even when I had cable because it was more convenient, i.e. I don't have to be up every night until midnight to watch the Daily Show. I, personally, would pay a <i>reasonable</i> subscription price if I had to, <i>if</i> they gave up certain perks, like no ads and episodes posted the night the show airs or at least early the next morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the same boat : we gave up cable a while back to save money .
I used to end up watching a lot of stuff on Hulu even when I had cable because it was more convenient , i.e .
I do n't have to be up every night until midnight to watch the Daily Show .
I , personally , would pay a reasonable subscription price if I had to , if they gave up certain perks , like no ads and episodes posted the night the show airs or at least early the next morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the same boat: we gave up cable a while back to save money.
I used to end up watching a lot of stuff on Hulu even when I had cable because it was more convenient, i.e.
I don't have to be up every night until midnight to watch the Daily Show.
I, personally, would pay a reasonable subscription price if I had to, if they gave up certain perks, like no ads and episodes posted the night the show airs or at least early the next morning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861851</id>
	<title>Upstream bandwidth is everything...Fiber RULES!</title>
	<author>cboslin</author>
	<datestamp>1256400120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does not matter who offers what via the Internet as unless you have a Fiber connection to the Internet you are going to find yourself limited, reduced, prevented, shaped, interrupted, put-your-term-here, deep packet inspected, throttled if you have Cable.

<p>I found my up to 8MB/10MB basic cable was throttled upstream to less than 40Kbps (top end) to as low as 0Kbps 85\% - 95\% of the time.  My downstream bounced between 8Kbps and 100Kbps...I was paying almost $50 per month.  My Speedtest showed over 9000 Kbps down and over 900Kbps up.

I added the $10 fee for "Turbo with with PowerBoost" the only Internet only plan that is guaranteed by the cable company to allow you to watch IP TV, Videos and Movies without problems.  It promises speeds up to either 14MB or 16MB.  Again these are "up to" speeds not guaranteed anything. The speed test still only showed over 9000Kbps down and over 900Kbs up, not either the 14MB or 16MB down as promised, so after a week of working on the problem, they are still trying to fix it.  I hope they will.

</p><p>Video still sputters, as do TV shows.  Thanks to the DD-WRT software I know that they are throttling / shaping my bandwidth down to less than 40Kbps upstream still.  Though I have explained to them that I need better than 250Kbps upstream, preferably 384Kbps to get a decent non-stuttering signal, the shaping software automatically decreases to the point that I there is not enough upstream bandwidth to watch any streaming content, be it IP TV, movies of video without problems.  I am trying to work with them, but they either can't or do not want to open up that upstream pipe.  This throttling happens no matter the time day or night 24 X 7.  I know the cable channel is not saturated at 3am or 4am every night, thus the idea that the shaping software is preserving some measure of quality is just another excuse.  Same is true between 9am - 4pm weekdays when most people are at work.

</p><p>I am starting to think that a DSL ISP provider at under $30 per month, for a guaranteed 384Kbps upstream and 1.5Mbps downstream would be a far better solution than what I am experiencing now with Cable.

</p><p>It does not matter what the downstream bandwidth is "up to", you must have a decent upstream sustained bandwidth to get a decent stream.  And these are NOT high definition streams, I shudder to think what will happen then.

</p><p>It does not matter what Hulu and others offer, charge, etc... if you do not have adequate bandwidth upstream, sustained, to stream content.

</p><p>If the Cable people can not fix it, I will try DSL, my guess is that I will have a better streaming experience thanks to being the only one on the pipe at 384Kbps or better.  And at those rates I could purchase a second DSL provider and have two DSL routers feeding into my DD-WRT controlled network.  If one provider drops the packet, the other could pick it up.

</p><p>The best option would be Greenlight 100MB/100MB synchronous fiber for $100 per month like they have in Wilson N.C. Heck I have considered relocating and buying a house there just for the Internet band width!

</p><p>Too bad the Telco/cable company oligopoly would rather limit us then provide service.  I can only hope that our politicians step up and stop this crud.  Until than, your best bet might be to avoid Cable until they remove bandwidth shaping / throttling and bandwidth caps all together.

</p><p>My experience has yet to be resolved and trust me when I tell you I will let you know.  Hopefully the cable company will do the right thing and fix this as now I am paying over $50 per month and not receiving what they have promised me....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does not matter who offers what via the Internet as unless you have a Fiber connection to the Internet you are going to find yourself limited , reduced , prevented , shaped , interrupted , put-your-term-here , deep packet inspected , throttled if you have Cable .
I found my up to 8MB/10MB basic cable was throttled upstream to less than 40Kbps ( top end ) to as low as 0Kbps 85 \ % - 95 \ % of the time .
My downstream bounced between 8Kbps and 100Kbps...I was paying almost $ 50 per month .
My Speedtest showed over 9000 Kbps down and over 900Kbps up .
I added the $ 10 fee for " Turbo with with PowerBoost " the only Internet only plan that is guaranteed by the cable company to allow you to watch IP TV , Videos and Movies without problems .
It promises speeds up to either 14MB or 16MB .
Again these are " up to " speeds not guaranteed anything .
The speed test still only showed over 9000Kbps down and over 900Kbs up , not either the 14MB or 16MB down as promised , so after a week of working on the problem , they are still trying to fix it .
I hope they will .
Video still sputters , as do TV shows .
Thanks to the DD-WRT software I know that they are throttling / shaping my bandwidth down to less than 40Kbps upstream still .
Though I have explained to them that I need better than 250Kbps upstream , preferably 384Kbps to get a decent non-stuttering signal , the shaping software automatically decreases to the point that I there is not enough upstream bandwidth to watch any streaming content , be it IP TV , movies of video without problems .
I am trying to work with them , but they either ca n't or do not want to open up that upstream pipe .
This throttling happens no matter the time day or night 24 X 7 .
I know the cable channel is not saturated at 3am or 4am every night , thus the idea that the shaping software is preserving some measure of quality is just another excuse .
Same is true between 9am - 4pm weekdays when most people are at work .
I am starting to think that a DSL ISP provider at under $ 30 per month , for a guaranteed 384Kbps upstream and 1.5Mbps downstream would be a far better solution than what I am experiencing now with Cable .
It does not matter what the downstream bandwidth is " up to " , you must have a decent upstream sustained bandwidth to get a decent stream .
And these are NOT high definition streams , I shudder to think what will happen then .
It does not matter what Hulu and others offer , charge , etc... if you do not have adequate bandwidth upstream , sustained , to stream content .
If the Cable people can not fix it , I will try DSL , my guess is that I will have a better streaming experience thanks to being the only one on the pipe at 384Kbps or better .
And at those rates I could purchase a second DSL provider and have two DSL routers feeding into my DD-WRT controlled network .
If one provider drops the packet , the other could pick it up .
The best option would be Greenlight 100MB/100MB synchronous fiber for $ 100 per month like they have in Wilson N.C. Heck I have considered relocating and buying a house there just for the Internet band width !
Too bad the Telco/cable company oligopoly would rather limit us then provide service .
I can only hope that our politicians step up and stop this crud .
Until than , your best bet might be to avoid Cable until they remove bandwidth shaping / throttling and bandwidth caps all together .
My experience has yet to be resolved and trust me when I tell you I will let you know .
Hopefully the cable company will do the right thing and fix this as now I am paying over $ 50 per month and not receiving what they have promised me... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does not matter who offers what via the Internet as unless you have a Fiber connection to the Internet you are going to find yourself limited, reduced, prevented, shaped, interrupted, put-your-term-here, deep packet inspected, throttled if you have Cable.
I found my up to 8MB/10MB basic cable was throttled upstream to less than 40Kbps (top end) to as low as 0Kbps 85\% - 95\% of the time.
My downstream bounced between 8Kbps and 100Kbps...I was paying almost $50 per month.
My Speedtest showed over 9000 Kbps down and over 900Kbps up.
I added the $10 fee for "Turbo with with PowerBoost" the only Internet only plan that is guaranteed by the cable company to allow you to watch IP TV, Videos and Movies without problems.
It promises speeds up to either 14MB or 16MB.
Again these are "up to" speeds not guaranteed anything.
The speed test still only showed over 9000Kbps down and over 900Kbs up, not either the 14MB or 16MB down as promised, so after a week of working on the problem, they are still trying to fix it.
I hope they will.
Video still sputters, as do TV shows.
Thanks to the DD-WRT software I know that they are throttling / shaping my bandwidth down to less than 40Kbps upstream still.
Though I have explained to them that I need better than 250Kbps upstream, preferably 384Kbps to get a decent non-stuttering signal, the shaping software automatically decreases to the point that I there is not enough upstream bandwidth to watch any streaming content, be it IP TV, movies of video without problems.
I am trying to work with them, but they either can't or do not want to open up that upstream pipe.
This throttling happens no matter the time day or night 24 X 7.
I know the cable channel is not saturated at 3am or 4am every night, thus the idea that the shaping software is preserving some measure of quality is just another excuse.
Same is true between 9am - 4pm weekdays when most people are at work.
I am starting to think that a DSL ISP provider at under $30 per month, for a guaranteed 384Kbps upstream and 1.5Mbps downstream would be a far better solution than what I am experiencing now with Cable.
It does not matter what the downstream bandwidth is "up to", you must have a decent upstream sustained bandwidth to get a decent stream.
And these are NOT high definition streams, I shudder to think what will happen then.
It does not matter what Hulu and others offer, charge, etc... if you do not have adequate bandwidth upstream, sustained, to stream content.
If the Cable people can not fix it, I will try DSL, my guess is that I will have a better streaming experience thanks to being the only one on the pipe at 384Kbps or better.
And at those rates I could purchase a second DSL provider and have two DSL routers feeding into my DD-WRT controlled network.
If one provider drops the packet, the other could pick it up.
The best option would be Greenlight 100MB/100MB synchronous fiber for $100 per month like they have in Wilson N.C. Heck I have considered relocating and buying a house there just for the Internet band width!
Too bad the Telco/cable company oligopoly would rather limit us then provide service.
I can only hope that our politicians step up and stop this crud.
Until than, your best bet might be to avoid Cable until they remove bandwidth shaping / throttling and bandwidth caps all together.
My experience has yet to be resolved and trust me when I tell you I will let you know.
Hopefully the cable company will do the right thing and fix this as now I am paying over $50 per month and not receiving what they have promised me....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855967</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>timlash</author>
	<datestamp>1256393160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dream on!  They know exactly what the market will bear for video entertainment and will push their price up close to that of other distribution mechanisms.  My guess is that they'll add a bunch of "features" and demand $20-$30/month all the while claiming to be cheaper than cable and satellite and therefore the most economical alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dream on !
They know exactly what the market will bear for video entertainment and will push their price up close to that of other distribution mechanisms .
My guess is that they 'll add a bunch of " features " and demand $ 20- $ 30/month all the while claiming to be cheaper than cable and satellite and therefore the most economical alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dream on!
They know exactly what the market will bear for video entertainment and will push their price up close to that of other distribution mechanisms.
My guess is that they'll add a bunch of "features" and demand $20-$30/month all the while claiming to be cheaper than cable and satellite and therefore the most economical alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856861</id>
	<title>Re:Same here</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1256401560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Tivo is $12.95/month.<br><a href="http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-hd-dvr/index.html" title="tivo.com">http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-hd-dvr/index.html</a> [tivo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Tivo is $ 12.95/month.http : //www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-hd-dvr/index.html [ tivo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Tivo is $12.95/month.http://www.tivo.com/dvr-products/tivo-hd-dvr/index.html [tivo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854425</id>
	<title>Same here</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1256321460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes I watch Hulu because it's convenient, if they were charging I'd drop them like a hot rock.  Tivo is your friend.

</p><p>Thinking they're going to come out with a charge model isn't as funny as Rupert Murdoch's threats to monetize his web properties, but it's vastly overestimating their importance in the content market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I watch Hulu because it 's convenient , if they were charging I 'd drop them like a hot rock .
Tivo is your friend .
Thinking they 're going to come out with a charge model is n't as funny as Rupert Murdoch 's threats to monetize his web properties , but it 's vastly overestimating their importance in the content market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I watch Hulu because it's convenient, if they were charging I'd drop them like a hot rock.
Tivo is your friend.
Thinking they're going to come out with a charge model isn't as funny as Rupert Murdoch's threats to monetize his web properties, but it's vastly overestimating their importance in the content market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29857541</id>
	<title>well then.</title>
	<author>Essequemodeia</author>
	<datestamp>1256406720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a related story, I won't be watching Hulu anymore next year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a related story , I wo n't be watching Hulu anymore next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a related story, I won't be watching Hulu anymore next year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855793</id>
	<title>To make it a good service...</title>
	<author>Paralizer</author>
	<datestamp>1256391300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>Charge something reasonable, say $5/mo</li>
<li>Make it all commercial free</li>
<li>Put all episodes back up for the shows that are available. No more of this 'only 5 episodes of American Dad' crap.</li>
<li>Allow products like Roku and PS3 to put it on their devices so we can watch it on a TV instead of a PC</li>
</ul><p>
Do the above and consider me a customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge something reasonable , say $ 5/mo Make it all commercial free Put all episodes back up for the shows that are available .
No more of this 'only 5 episodes of American Dad ' crap .
Allow products like Roku and PS3 to put it on their devices so we can watch it on a TV instead of a PC Do the above and consider me a customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Charge something reasonable, say $5/mo
Make it all commercial free
Put all episodes back up for the shows that are available.
No more of this 'only 5 episodes of American Dad' crap.
Allow products like Roku and PS3 to put it on their devices so we can watch it on a TV instead of a PC

Do the above and consider me a customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29857935</id>
	<title>Bittorrent is not the enemy</title>
	<author>Dhraakellian</author>
	<datestamp>1256409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TV studios need to realize that the internet and bittorrent are not going away.  They need to adapt and learn to use these technologies to their advantage.</p><p>They should release directly and officially to bittorrent with tastefully inserted ads.  If the ads aren't overly obnoxious, people will be more likely to stay with the official, legitimate version and less likely to remove them or grab copies with the ads already removed.</p><p>Bittorrent also has the practical advantage of providing ratings with an enormous sample size.  Even if the viewer to downloader ratio isn't exactly 1:1, bittorrent tracker stats would still be a good indicator of popularity.</p><p>I would suggest replacing the station ID watermark with a static "Sponsored by..." notice that changes at the points when there would otherwise be a commercial break. These would be better than banners because they'd be harder to remove without destroying part of the picture and would be far less annoying and offputting than the animated [unprintable] found in some OTA broadcasts.</p><p>If advertisers are unwilling to pay as much for such watermarks tucked away in the corner of the screen, classic-style commercials interspersed at certain intervals, but these would be easier to remove or just fast-forward through.  These are more annoying and disruptive if not skipped, but customers (and advertisers) are used to them.  DVR and VHS have had fast-forwarding for ages with time-shifted watching. Perhaps <a href="http://trial.p2p-next.org/" title="p2p-next.org" rel="nofollow">torrent streaming</a> [p2p-next.org] could be the answer to this for those who want their shows *right now*, before the download finishes all the way.</p><p>Hulu is a step in the right direction, but Flash is annoying, restrictive, and has performance issues for non-Windows users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TV studios need to realize that the internet and bittorrent are not going away .
They need to adapt and learn to use these technologies to their advantage.They should release directly and officially to bittorrent with tastefully inserted ads .
If the ads are n't overly obnoxious , people will be more likely to stay with the official , legitimate version and less likely to remove them or grab copies with the ads already removed.Bittorrent also has the practical advantage of providing ratings with an enormous sample size .
Even if the viewer to downloader ratio is n't exactly 1 : 1 , bittorrent tracker stats would still be a good indicator of popularity.I would suggest replacing the station ID watermark with a static " Sponsored by... " notice that changes at the points when there would otherwise be a commercial break .
These would be better than banners because they 'd be harder to remove without destroying part of the picture and would be far less annoying and offputting than the animated [ unprintable ] found in some OTA broadcasts.If advertisers are unwilling to pay as much for such watermarks tucked away in the corner of the screen , classic-style commercials interspersed at certain intervals , but these would be easier to remove or just fast-forward through .
These are more annoying and disruptive if not skipped , but customers ( and advertisers ) are used to them .
DVR and VHS have had fast-forwarding for ages with time-shifted watching .
Perhaps torrent streaming [ p2p-next.org ] could be the answer to this for those who want their shows * right now * , before the download finishes all the way.Hulu is a step in the right direction , but Flash is annoying , restrictive , and has performance issues for non-Windows users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TV studios need to realize that the internet and bittorrent are not going away.
They need to adapt and learn to use these technologies to their advantage.They should release directly and officially to bittorrent with tastefully inserted ads.
If the ads aren't overly obnoxious, people will be more likely to stay with the official, legitimate version and less likely to remove them or grab copies with the ads already removed.Bittorrent also has the practical advantage of providing ratings with an enormous sample size.
Even if the viewer to downloader ratio isn't exactly 1:1, bittorrent tracker stats would still be a good indicator of popularity.I would suggest replacing the station ID watermark with a static "Sponsored by..." notice that changes at the points when there would otherwise be a commercial break.
These would be better than banners because they'd be harder to remove without destroying part of the picture and would be far less annoying and offputting than the animated [unprintable] found in some OTA broadcasts.If advertisers are unwilling to pay as much for such watermarks tucked away in the corner of the screen, classic-style commercials interspersed at certain intervals, but these would be easier to remove or just fast-forward through.
These are more annoying and disruptive if not skipped, but customers (and advertisers) are used to them.
DVR and VHS have had fast-forwarding for ages with time-shifted watching.
Perhaps torrent streaming [p2p-next.org] could be the answer to this for those who want their shows *right now*, before the download finishes all the way.Hulu is a step in the right direction, but Flash is annoying, restrictive, and has performance issues for non-Windows users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855055</id>
	<title>Not the best business decision ever...</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1256379840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone I know who uses Hulu does so because we don't have TVs but still want to watch the few good shows on Television for free like everyone else can.  The moment they start charging, there's going to be a almost complete drop-off in Hulu viewership and a huge spike in bittorrent traffic.  Who gets the ad dollars then?  Honestly?  What little there is will go to the bittorrent sites.</p><p>Kinda gives me the warm-fuzzies, to be honest.   I mean you always have those crazy-ass people going "HURRRRR PIRACY IS TERRORISM" but now I can argue that Hulu, by driving people away from watching their ad-supported free media, and producing web ad revenue for bittorrent sites, are 'supporting terrorism'.  ZING!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone I know who uses Hulu does so because we do n't have TVs but still want to watch the few good shows on Television for free like everyone else can .
The moment they start charging , there 's going to be a almost complete drop-off in Hulu viewership and a huge spike in bittorrent traffic .
Who gets the ad dollars then ?
Honestly ? What little there is will go to the bittorrent sites.Kinda gives me the warm-fuzzies , to be honest .
I mean you always have those crazy-ass people going " HURRRRR PIRACY IS TERRORISM " but now I can argue that Hulu , by driving people away from watching their ad-supported free media , and producing web ad revenue for bittorrent sites , are 'supporting terrorism' .
ZING !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone I know who uses Hulu does so because we don't have TVs but still want to watch the few good shows on Television for free like everyone else can.
The moment they start charging, there's going to be a almost complete drop-off in Hulu viewership and a huge spike in bittorrent traffic.
Who gets the ad dollars then?
Honestly?  What little there is will go to the bittorrent sites.Kinda gives me the warm-fuzzies, to be honest.
I mean you always have those crazy-ass people going "HURRRRR PIRACY IS TERRORISM" but now I can argue that Hulu, by driving people away from watching their ad-supported free media, and producing web ad revenue for bittorrent sites, are 'supporting terrorism'.
ZING!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854983</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe it would work..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256378100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hulu can be viewed full-screen on any monitor you wish. hulu isn't doing anything to stop you nor could they.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hulu can be viewed full-screen on any monitor you wish .
hulu is n't doing anything to stop you nor could they .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hulu can be viewed full-screen on any monitor you wish.
hulu isn't doing anything to stop you nor could they.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854347</id>
	<title>The only possibility</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1256320320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term.</p></div><p>... and the pay-to-view model is not sustainable period.</p><p>The only model that has a narrow chance is if they charge something like 5 dollars per year, but also get rid of their randomly disappearing and reappearing content. No one will complain while its free, but when I start watching a series from season 1, I expect season 5 to still be there when I get there. I'm just sayin'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term.... and the pay-to-view model is not sustainable period.The only model that has a narrow chance is if they charge something like 5 dollars per year , but also get rid of their randomly disappearing and reappearing content .
No one will complain while its free , but when I start watching a series from season 1 , I expect season 5 to still be there when I get there .
I 'm just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the free-to-air model is not sustainable in the long-term.... and the pay-to-view model is not sustainable period.The only model that has a narrow chance is if they charge something like 5 dollars per year, but also get rid of their randomly disappearing and reappearing content.
No one will complain while its free, but when I start watching a series from season 1, I expect season 5 to still be there when I get there.
I'm just sayin'.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for. Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.</i></p><p>Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads? When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place? I do.</p><p>And somehow, 20 years later, cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads. Literally, ads on top of ads. (you know, when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad, and it happens while other ads are playing?)</p><p>Now Hulu comes along. it's got decent shows, a decent experience, and doesn't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads, and it's FREE. Any surprise it's popular?</p><p>Give it a few years. Then you'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads, if history is any lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If true , I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for .
Not sure how that would work currently , but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for * quality * programming.Remember when buying cable meant you did n't have to watch ads ?
When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place ?
I do.And somehow , 20 years later , cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads .
Literally , ads on top of ads .
( you know , when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad , and it happens while other ads are playing ?
) Now Hulu comes along .
it 's got decent shows , a decent experience , and does n't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads , and it 's FREE .
Any surprise it 's popular ? Give it a few years .
Then you 'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads , if history is any lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for.
Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads?
When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place?
I do.And somehow, 20 years later, cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads.
Literally, ads on top of ads.
(you know, when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad, and it happens while other ads are playing?
)Now Hulu comes along.
it's got decent shows, a decent experience, and doesn't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads, and it's FREE.
Any surprise it's popular?Give it a few years.
Then you'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads, if history is any lesson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29868299</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>KarmaOverDogma</author>
	<datestamp>1256480880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A certain company called "Netflix" already has this service (with limited shows available) and wants your business, for as little as $9.95 per month.  Maybe they'll buy out HULU and incorporate the business model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A certain company called " Netflix " already has this service ( with limited shows available ) and wants your business , for as little as $ 9.95 per month .
Maybe they 'll buy out HULU and incorporate the business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A certain company called "Netflix" already has this service (with limited shows available) and wants your business, for as little as $9.95 per month.
Maybe they'll buy out HULU and incorporate the business model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855395</id>
	<title>What this is a suprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256385900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is typical.  Get them hooked for free.  Slowly start charging when demand goes up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is typical .
Get them hooked for free .
Slowly start charging when demand goes up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is typical.
Get them hooked for free.
Slowly start charging when demand goes up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854337</id>
	<title>Ads should be enough</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1256320260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We canceled our cable a couple years ago, and have lived quiet happily with HULU, a $9 Netflix subscription, and a $50 Craigslist post lease PC attached to our HDTV.</p><p>Hulu has always been very generous (IMO) with the number of ads in their content.  I always assumed at some point they would take that up to the same level as network TV.  Keep in mind networks have existed happily for many years broadcasting free with only the ad revenue.</p><p>If and when HULU goes pay (depending on content and terms) our household will most likely simply stop watching HULU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We canceled our cable a couple years ago , and have lived quiet happily with HULU , a $ 9 Netflix subscription , and a $ 50 Craigslist post lease PC attached to our HDTV.Hulu has always been very generous ( IMO ) with the number of ads in their content .
I always assumed at some point they would take that up to the same level as network TV .
Keep in mind networks have existed happily for many years broadcasting free with only the ad revenue.If and when HULU goes pay ( depending on content and terms ) our household will most likely simply stop watching HULU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We canceled our cable a couple years ago, and have lived quiet happily with HULU, a $9 Netflix subscription, and a $50 Craigslist post lease PC attached to our HDTV.Hulu has always been very generous (IMO) with the number of ads in their content.
I always assumed at some point they would take that up to the same level as network TV.
Keep in mind networks have existed happily for many years broadcasting free with only the ad revenue.If and when HULU goes pay (depending on content and terms) our household will most likely simply stop watching HULU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854181</id>
	<title>Don't care</title>
	<author>soundguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256318040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't give less of a rat's ass. New 1-terabyte Tivo &amp; Fios here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't give less of a rat 's ass .
New 1-terabyte Tivo &amp; Fios here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't give less of a rat's ass.
New 1-terabyte Tivo &amp; Fios here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855661</id>
	<title>Ah, the Give it to me bunch chimes on and on!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256389860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, there's a lot of people proclaiming they won't pay for it, that this will doom Hulu, and that it's going to cause more piracy.</p><p>Yeah, now try looking at it from Hulu's side of things.   Can they pay their bills with the revenue they're getting from ads?    Do you think the advertisers will throw more money at them if they're not delivering paying customers?</p><p>Cuz guess what?   The Hulu people have to eat too.  If they don't, bam, they're dead.</p><p>Of course, I think the Slashdot crowd is about as representative of the real market as a goldfish cracker is of the real fish, but who knows...maybe they are doomed.</p><p>Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , there 's a lot of people proclaiming they wo n't pay for it , that this will doom Hulu , and that it 's going to cause more piracy.Yeah , now try looking at it from Hulu 's side of things .
Can they pay their bills with the revenue they 're getting from ads ?
Do you think the advertisers will throw more money at them if they 're not delivering paying customers ? Cuz guess what ?
The Hulu people have to eat too .
If they do n't , bam , they 're dead.Of course , I think the Slashdot crowd is about as representative of the real market as a goldfish cracker is of the real fish , but who knows...maybe they are doomed.Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, there's a lot of people proclaiming they won't pay for it, that this will doom Hulu, and that it's going to cause more piracy.Yeah, now try looking at it from Hulu's side of things.
Can they pay their bills with the revenue they're getting from ads?
Do you think the advertisers will throw more money at them if they're not delivering paying customers?Cuz guess what?
The Hulu people have to eat too.
If they don't, bam, they're dead.Of course, I think the Slashdot crowd is about as representative of the real market as a goldfish cracker is of the real fish, but who knows...maybe they are doomed.Oh well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856357</id>
	<title>Re:I'd pay for Hulu...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer should be IP multicast, at least in this world of asymmetric connections and in which we HAVE THE POWER to run IPv6; the cable modems will do it. The ISPs can gateway to IP4. And allegedly, multicast <em>actually works</em> with IPv6...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer should be IP multicast , at least in this world of asymmetric connections and in which we HAVE THE POWER to run IPv6 ; the cable modems will do it .
The ISPs can gateway to IP4 .
And allegedly , multicast actually works with IPv6.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer should be IP multicast, at least in this world of asymmetric connections and in which we HAVE THE POWER to run IPv6; the cable modems will do it.
The ISPs can gateway to IP4.
And allegedly, multicast actually works with IPv6...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855497</id>
	<title>I'll bet they still have ads, even if we pay.</title>
	<author>asjk</author>
	<datestamp>1256387640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NT</htmltext>
<tokenext>NT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855639</id>
	<title>...and the competition take more viewing share</title>
	<author>fortapocalypse</author>
	<datestamp>1256389560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://greatstufftv.com/" title="greatstufftv.com" rel="nofollow">greatstufftv</a> [greatstufftv.com], <a href="http://youtube.com/" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">youtube</a> [youtube.com], major broadcast companies already stream,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>greatstufftv [ greatstufftv.com ] , youtube [ youtube.com ] , major broadcast companies already stream , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>greatstufftv [greatstufftv.com], youtube [youtube.com], major broadcast companies already stream, ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854751</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256327700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I did not realize the Hulu viewers were 'bound' and therefore needed to be 'loosed' in the first place.</p></div><p>Of course they were. Streaming Flash video = bound. Downloading torrents = loosed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not realize the Hulu viewers were 'bound ' and therefore needed to be 'loosed ' in the first place.Of course they were .
Streaming Flash video = bound .
Downloading torrents = loosed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not realize the Hulu viewers were 'bound' and therefore needed to be 'loosed' in the first place.Of course they were.
Streaming Flash video = bound.
Downloading torrents = loosed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854541</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256324220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Solution: buy a tv card for your pc and download Mythbuntu.  Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution : buy a tv card for your pc and download Mythbuntu .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution: buy a tv card for your pc and download Mythbuntu.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854841</id>
	<title>megaupload</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256416440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nuff said</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nuff said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nuff said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29865593</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>justinjstark</author>
	<datestamp>1256495400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When cable television first started, it was an advertisement-free, pay-monthly service.  Eventually, they started placing more and more ads while also charging monthly for the service.  Hulu will go the same way.  You might start paying $5 per month for ad-free viewing but eventually Hulu (or someone else) will gain exclusive broadcasting rights and start including advertisements while still billing you monthly.  I don't have much hope that things in the future will be different when the large corporations still control the content and services of distribution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When cable television first started , it was an advertisement-free , pay-monthly service .
Eventually , they started placing more and more ads while also charging monthly for the service .
Hulu will go the same way .
You might start paying $ 5 per month for ad-free viewing but eventually Hulu ( or someone else ) will gain exclusive broadcasting rights and start including advertisements while still billing you monthly .
I do n't have much hope that things in the future will be different when the large corporations still control the content and services of distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When cable television first started, it was an advertisement-free, pay-monthly service.
Eventually, they started placing more and more ads while also charging monthly for the service.
Hulu will go the same way.
You might start paying $5 per month for ad-free viewing but eventually Hulu (or someone else) will gain exclusive broadcasting rights and start including advertisements while still billing you monthly.
I don't have much hope that things in the future will be different when the large corporations still control the content and services of distribution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856041</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1256393820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear Hulu,<br>
<br>
I <b>want to pay</b> about $15/mo to be able to download(1) TV shows <b>at the same time they air</b> in an <b>patent-free, DRM-free(2)</b> format(3).<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Millions of People.<br>
<br>
(1) Some internet sites have figured out how to control torrent files, if you could do the same you could dramatically decrease your monthly bandwidth charges. For instance, the torrent file is only good for the IP it was issued for (users just login and grab a new torrent if their IP changes) (set-top boxes could <b>easily</b> be programmed to work with this sort of system.<br>
(2) Apple is DRM free now and they're<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b&gt;. You could easily become the iTunes of the TV Show world.<br>
(3) I humbly suggest AAC or Vorbis audio; H264, Theora, or Dirac video; Matroska or Ogg container. (Again, set-top box programmers will love you, and every PC/Mac/etc will play it too. <b>Make it easy for people to do business with you and they will.</b>)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Hulu , I want to pay about $ 15/mo to be able to download ( 1 ) TV shows at the same time they air in an patent-free , DRM-free ( 2 ) format ( 3 ) .
Sincerely , Millions of People .
( 1 ) Some internet sites have figured out how to control torrent files , if you could do the same you could dramatically decrease your monthly bandwidth charges .
For instance , the torrent file is only good for the IP it was issued for ( users just login and grab a new torrent if their IP changes ) ( set-top boxes could easily be programmed to work with this sort of system .
( 2 ) Apple is DRM free now and they 're /b &gt; .
You could easily become the iTunes of the TV Show world .
( 3 ) I humbly suggest AAC or Vorbis audio ; H264 , Theora , or Dirac video ; Matroska or Ogg container .
( Again , set-top box programmers will love you , and every PC/Mac/etc will play it too .
Make it easy for people to do business with you and they will .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Hulu,

I want to pay about $15/mo to be able to download(1) TV shows at the same time they air in an patent-free, DRM-free(2) format(3).
Sincerely,
Millions of People.
(1) Some internet sites have figured out how to control torrent files, if you could do the same you could dramatically decrease your monthly bandwidth charges.
For instance, the torrent file is only good for the IP it was issued for (users just login and grab a new torrent if their IP changes) (set-top boxes could easily be programmed to work with this sort of system.
(2) Apple is DRM free now and they're /b&gt;.
You could easily become the iTunes of the TV Show world.
(3) I humbly suggest AAC or Vorbis audio; H264, Theora, or Dirac video; Matroska or Ogg container.
(Again, set-top box programmers will love you, and every PC/Mac/etc will play it too.
Make it easy for people to do business with you and they will.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862499</id>
	<title>charge?</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1256409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>charge for HULU?  Is this a joke?  It is free now and after trying once or twice - I <i>never</i> go there.<br> <br>I wonder how often i'll visit when they start charging?</htmltext>
<tokenext>charge for HULU ?
Is this a joke ?
It is free now and after trying once or twice - I never go there .
I wonder how often i 'll visit when they start charging ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>charge for HULU?
Is this a joke?
It is free now and after trying once or twice - I never go there.
I wonder how often i'll visit when they start charging?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854617</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HBO has a record for stellar dramatic series and quality documentaries. Though they have really failed to produce in this department of late with crap like Tell Me You Love Me and In Treatment. They are lucky Curb went for another season or their new lineup would have been beyond pitiful.</p><p>Still, they have shows with amazing production value that blow the socks off of the total garbage network shows. Surely they have a couple viewers that watch these shows they blow millions on each year.</p><p>People haven't been subscribing to HBO for the softcore porn for quite a while. It may have been sort of true a decade or so ago, but we have the internet now, and that serves even the most demanding porn enthusiast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HBO has a record for stellar dramatic series and quality documentaries .
Though they have really failed to produce in this department of late with crap like Tell Me You Love Me and In Treatment .
They are lucky Curb went for another season or their new lineup would have been beyond pitiful.Still , they have shows with amazing production value that blow the socks off of the total garbage network shows .
Surely they have a couple viewers that watch these shows they blow millions on each year.People have n't been subscribing to HBO for the softcore porn for quite a while .
It may have been sort of true a decade or so ago , but we have the internet now , and that serves even the most demanding porn enthusiast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HBO has a record for stellar dramatic series and quality documentaries.
Though they have really failed to produce in this department of late with crap like Tell Me You Love Me and In Treatment.
They are lucky Curb went for another season or their new lineup would have been beyond pitiful.Still, they have shows with amazing production value that blow the socks off of the total garbage network shows.
Surely they have a couple viewers that watch these shows they blow millions on each year.People haven't been subscribing to HBO for the softcore porn for quite a while.
It may have been sort of true a decade or so ago, but we have the internet now, and that serves even the most demanding porn enthusiast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854241</id>
	<title>They Need to Improve Service First</title>
	<author>kgholloway</author>
	<datestamp>1256318940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not satisfied that the Hulu streaming service is of acceptable quality to sustain a "pay-for-view" model.  I only use their service if I absolutely have to.

I am already a paid subscriber to three other online streaming services.  All of these services give their users a better quality experience.  And I'm speaking about things like rock solid streaming, 480p and 720p steams, better "full screen" response, and easier navigation around their sites.

Until Hulu gets their act together my money will stay in my pocket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not satisfied that the Hulu streaming service is of acceptable quality to sustain a " pay-for-view " model .
I only use their service if I absolutely have to .
I am already a paid subscriber to three other online streaming services .
All of these services give their users a better quality experience .
And I 'm speaking about things like rock solid streaming , 480p and 720p steams , better " full screen " response , and easier navigation around their sites .
Until Hulu gets their act together my money will stay in my pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not satisfied that the Hulu streaming service is of acceptable quality to sustain a "pay-for-view" model.
I only use their service if I absolutely have to.
I am already a paid subscriber to three other online streaming services.
All of these services give their users a better quality experience.
And I'm speaking about things like rock solid streaming, 480p and 720p steams, better "full screen" response, and easier navigation around their sites.
Until Hulu gets their act together my money will stay in my pocket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854309</id>
	<title>This is good</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1256319660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We shouldn't be patronizing people like these who won't let their signal out of the country anyway. Let's use the internet to tear down the borders, not reenforce them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't be patronizing people like these who wo n't let their signal out of the country anyway .
Let 's use the internet to tear down the borders , not reenforce them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't be patronizing people like these who won't let their signal out of the country anyway.
Let's use the internet to tear down the borders, not reenforce them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856743</id>
	<title>Good Bye Time Waster Hulu!</title>
	<author>curmudgeon99</author>
	<datestamp>1256400420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is good in that it will remove Hulu.com from my list of sites that I visit. If they do this, then I for one will never go back. Sorry folks. You can't put the dust back on the butterfly's wings. We've been getting stuff free--and not really all that good of stuff moviewise--and to expect money? Well, g'bye!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is good in that it will remove Hulu.com from my list of sites that I visit .
If they do this , then I for one will never go back .
Sorry folks .
You ca n't put the dust back on the butterfly 's wings .
We 've been getting stuff free--and not really all that good of stuff moviewise--and to expect money ?
Well , g'bye !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is good in that it will remove Hulu.com from my list of sites that I visit.
If they do this, then I for one will never go back.
Sorry folks.
You can't put the dust back on the butterfly's wings.
We've been getting stuff free--and not really all that good of stuff moviewise--and to expect money?
Well, g'bye!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256319900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I counter your anecdote with mine: we gave up cable a year ago, but I would certainly consider paying for Hulu, so long as the price was reasonable (i.e., much less than cable or iTunes would cost for a month of television).  In fact, if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $5/month, I might consider that as well.</p><p>And broadcast TV is useless for me anymore: I've gotten too used to watching shows when *I* have the time, not when they're scheduled to be on; and I like being able to watch from any room in the house, not just on the television.  I could get TIVO, but now we're not talking "free on broadcast TV" anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I counter your anecdote with mine : we gave up cable a year ago , but I would certainly consider paying for Hulu , so long as the price was reasonable ( i.e. , much less than cable or iTunes would cost for a month of television ) .
In fact , if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $ 5/month , I might consider that as well.And broadcast TV is useless for me anymore : I 've gotten too used to watching shows when * I * have the time , not when they 're scheduled to be on ; and I like being able to watch from any room in the house , not just on the television .
I could get TIVO , but now we 're not talking " free on broadcast TV " anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I counter your anecdote with mine: we gave up cable a year ago, but I would certainly consider paying for Hulu, so long as the price was reasonable (i.e., much less than cable or iTunes would cost for a month of television).
In fact, if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $5/month, I might consider that as well.And broadcast TV is useless for me anymore: I've gotten too used to watching shows when *I* have the time, not when they're scheduled to be on; and I like being able to watch from any room in the house, not just on the television.
I could get TIVO, but now we're not talking "free on broadcast TV" anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854359</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>enjo13</author>
	<datestamp>1256320500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will absolutely not pay unless I can freely stream my Hulu content to my TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will absolutely not pay unless I can freely stream my Hulu content to my TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will absolutely not pay unless I can freely stream my Hulu content to my TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854589</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256325300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What country are you in that only got cable 20 years ago, and introduced it without ads? It's been about 30 years since cable was introduced in southern Ontario, and it carried regular ad-supported stations. The difference was you got more channels, and all at full strength.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What country are you in that only got cable 20 years ago , and introduced it without ads ?
It 's been about 30 years since cable was introduced in southern Ontario , and it carried regular ad-supported stations .
The difference was you got more channels , and all at full strength .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What country are you in that only got cable 20 years ago, and introduced it without ads?
It's been about 30 years since cable was introduced in southern Ontario, and it carried regular ad-supported stations.
The difference was you got more channels, and all at full strength.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854837</id>
	<title>The Problem is HOW MUCH money do they want to make</title>
	<author>Udigs</author>
	<datestamp>1256416380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, with the kind of traffic Hulu gets and the kind of top shelf advertisers they pull... They're not making money? Hardly. The PROBLEM is that they're not making ENOUGH money. They *own* most of the content they put up there, so we can't believe that they are paying ALL of that that in royalties. <br> <br>

Just another case of corporate greed. Nothing to see here. Move along now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , with the kind of traffic Hulu gets and the kind of top shelf advertisers they pull... They 're not making money ?
Hardly. The PROBLEM is that they 're not making ENOUGH money .
They * own * most of the content they put up there , so we ca n't believe that they are paying ALL of that that in royalties .
Just another case of corporate greed .
Nothing to see here .
Move along now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, with the kind of traffic Hulu gets and the kind of top shelf advertisers they pull... They're not making money?
Hardly. The PROBLEM is that they're not making ENOUGH money.
They *own* most of the content they put up there, so we can't believe that they are paying ALL of that that in royalties.
Just another case of corporate greed.
Nothing to see here.
Move along now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854715</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Subhead: "General public learns how to use bittorrent--traffic to EZTV.it and Mininova surge!"</p><p>
I am a heavy bittorrent user.  I honestly tried to like Hulu when it came out, but the ads were just too long for me.  So now I just "timeshift" my shows via bittorrent exclusively.  HD rips + no commercials + no buffering + ability to easily archive + hookup to my flatscreen TV = not touching anything else with a 10ft pole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" new headline : Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year .
" Subhead : " General public learns how to use bittorrent--traffic to EZTV.it and Mininova surge !
" I am a heavy bittorrent user .
I honestly tried to like Hulu when it came out , but the ads were just too long for me .
So now I just " timeshift " my shows via bittorrent exclusively .
HD rips + no commercials + no buffering + ability to easily archive + hookup to my flatscreen TV = not touching anything else with a 10ft pole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.
"
Subhead: "General public learns how to use bittorrent--traffic to EZTV.it and Mininova surge!
"
I am a heavy bittorrent user.
I honestly tried to like Hulu when it came out, but the ads were just too long for me.
So now I just "timeshift" my shows via bittorrent exclusively.
HD rips + no commercials + no buffering + ability to easily archive + hookup to my flatscreen TV = not touching anything else with a 10ft pole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861813</id>
	<title>Re:Per-Show bundles are a good idea!</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1256399760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're kinda describing the ala carte model people have wanted in cable for a very long time.  I'd pay too if I could choose what I want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kinda describing the ala carte model people have wanted in cable for a very long time .
I 'd pay too if I could choose what I want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kinda describing the ala carte model people have wanted in cable for a very long time.
I'd pay too if I could choose what I want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856029</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256393700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem I see is how many services will people end up paying for?  We gave up cable too, and use Netflix quite a bit.  Add the cost of a future Hulu service, maybe an online sports service yet available, and you could find yourself paying more than a cable/satellite service.  Dish can be as low as 40/month and be an acceptable replacement for all of these for many people.  $5/month could be reasonable but they need to be careful with price models since people will need to piece together services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I see is how many services will people end up paying for ?
We gave up cable too , and use Netflix quite a bit .
Add the cost of a future Hulu service , maybe an online sports service yet available , and you could find yourself paying more than a cable/satellite service .
Dish can be as low as 40/month and be an acceptable replacement for all of these for many people .
$ 5/month could be reasonable but they need to be careful with price models since people will need to piece together services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I see is how many services will people end up paying for?
We gave up cable too, and use Netflix quite a bit.
Add the cost of a future Hulu service, maybe an online sports service yet available, and you could find yourself paying more than a cable/satellite service.
Dish can be as low as 40/month and be an acceptable replacement for all of these for many people.
$5/month could be reasonable but they need to be careful with price models since people will need to piece together services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29857713</id>
	<title>ad revenue model?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1256408100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, I'm wondering: what is it they're actually saying about the 'sustainability' of their current model? Is it that ads are not a sustainable revenue source for a medium which requires such large amounts of bandwidth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm wondering : what is it they 're actually saying about the 'sustainability ' of their current model ?
Is it that ads are not a sustainable revenue source for a medium which requires such large amounts of bandwidth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm wondering: what is it they're actually saying about the 'sustainability' of their current model?
Is it that ads are not a sustainable revenue source for a medium which requires such large amounts of bandwidth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</id>
	<title>time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>new headline : Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>new headline: Hulu may begin loosing viewers next year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855987</id>
	<title>SO how was regular tv sustained?</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1256393340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um interesting and just shows the greed and watch as 80\% stop using it and you lose big time , do they not put like commercials in things or have ads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um interesting and just shows the greed and watch as 80 \ % stop using it and you lose big time , do they not put like commercials in things or have ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um interesting and just shows the greed and watch as 80\% stop using it and you lose big time , do they not put like commercials in things or have ads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854503</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1256322960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads? When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place? I do.</p></div><p>Rock on!  I remember the good old days.  I learned my lesson with cable too.  </p><p>If I pay for media nowdays, I expect it not to have any commercials.  If you let them open the advertising door, it starts with a few dollars a month and a few ads... and a few years later you have 30\% ads and "taxes" and "taxes" on top of that few dollars a month, which increased due to energy costs and other BS.    </p><p>Hulu has it's problems, but I use it because dealing with them is worth the effort.  But I would not whip out my credit card for the current performance I get from Hulu, even if the cost per show was $1.  If they want to charge, the ads better disappear and the video quality better go up... and I doubt they will be making money then.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when buying cable meant you did n't have to watch ads ?
When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place ?
I do.Rock on !
I remember the good old days .
I learned my lesson with cable too .
If I pay for media nowdays , I expect it not to have any commercials .
If you let them open the advertising door , it starts with a few dollars a month and a few ads... and a few years later you have 30 \ % ads and " taxes " and " taxes " on top of that few dollars a month , which increased due to energy costs and other BS .
Hulu has it 's problems , but I use it because dealing with them is worth the effort .
But I would not whip out my credit card for the current performance I get from Hulu , even if the cost per show was $ 1 .
If they want to charge , the ads better disappear and the video quality better go up... and I doubt they will be making money then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads?
When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place?
I do.Rock on!
I remember the good old days.
I learned my lesson with cable too.
If I pay for media nowdays, I expect it not to have any commercials.
If you let them open the advertising door, it starts with a few dollars a month and a few ads... and a few years later you have 30\% ads and "taxes" and "taxes" on top of that few dollars a month, which increased due to energy costs and other BS.
Hulu has it's problems, but I use it because dealing with them is worth the effort.
But I would not whip out my credit card for the current performance I get from Hulu, even if the cost per show was $1.
If they want to charge, the ads better disappear and the video quality better go up... and I doubt they will be making money then.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29857825</id>
	<title>Concast gets involved,,,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256409120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: "It was not clear how a potential purchase by Comcast Corp. of a controlling stake in General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal will affect Hulu. Talks are ongoing."</p><p>nothing good ever comes from comcast....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " It was not clear how a potential purchase by Comcast Corp. of a controlling stake in General Electric Co. 's NBC Universal will affect Hulu .
Talks are ongoing .
" nothing good ever comes from comcast... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: "It was not clear how a potential purchase by Comcast Corp. of a controlling stake in General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal will affect Hulu.
Talks are ongoing.
"nothing good ever comes from comcast....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854213</id>
	<title>I guess the current business model...</title>
	<author>trudyscousin</author>
	<datestamp>1256318640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...just wasn't profitable enough.</p><p>That's a shame, because my fianc&#233;e and I have really enjoyed Hulu, as it's allowed us to watch our favorite shows (those that Hulu carries, anyway) on our own schedules, and with short commercial breaks, and no banner ads across the lower quarter or third of the screen. It's proven to be kind of an ideal version of television. (We've never had on-demand or DVR, just expanded basic cable, so take that with as many grains of salt as you wish.)</p><p>Speaking for myself, the continual, intrusive advertising that plagues television today has done much to drive me away from it, but Hulu has succeeded in bringing me back. I really don't mind that much when the ads are at most a minute long (sometimes as short as 10-15 seconds), and only one at a time.</p><p>Meanwhile, we're taking a wait-and-see approach to what happens next. There's no telling what Hulu will charge, but if it's reasonable (define that how you will) and serves to, say, buy CBS's participation, it could still be a worthy thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...just was n't profitable enough.That 's a shame , because my fianc   e and I have really enjoyed Hulu , as it 's allowed us to watch our favorite shows ( those that Hulu carries , anyway ) on our own schedules , and with short commercial breaks , and no banner ads across the lower quarter or third of the screen .
It 's proven to be kind of an ideal version of television .
( We 've never had on-demand or DVR , just expanded basic cable , so take that with as many grains of salt as you wish .
) Speaking for myself , the continual , intrusive advertising that plagues television today has done much to drive me away from it , but Hulu has succeeded in bringing me back .
I really do n't mind that much when the ads are at most a minute long ( sometimes as short as 10-15 seconds ) , and only one at a time.Meanwhile , we 're taking a wait-and-see approach to what happens next .
There 's no telling what Hulu will charge , but if it 's reasonable ( define that how you will ) and serves to , say , buy CBS 's participation , it could still be a worthy thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...just wasn't profitable enough.That's a shame, because my fiancée and I have really enjoyed Hulu, as it's allowed us to watch our favorite shows (those that Hulu carries, anyway) on our own schedules, and with short commercial breaks, and no banner ads across the lower quarter or third of the screen.
It's proven to be kind of an ideal version of television.
(We've never had on-demand or DVR, just expanded basic cable, so take that with as many grains of salt as you wish.
)Speaking for myself, the continual, intrusive advertising that plagues television today has done much to drive me away from it, but Hulu has succeeded in bringing me back.
I really don't mind that much when the ads are at most a minute long (sometimes as short as 10-15 seconds), and only one at a time.Meanwhile, we're taking a wait-and-see approach to what happens next.
There's no telling what Hulu will charge, but if it's reasonable (define that how you will) and serves to, say, buy CBS's participation, it could still be a worthy thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29885171</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'd gladly pay some for commercial free TV...  oh yeah, that's what they said about Cable 20 years ago...  Sure you might have on demand choices, but no different really.    I'm sure if Hulu could make nicotine waft out of your computer they'd do that too.  It's all about making money, addicts are easy to sell to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'd gladly pay some for commercial free TV... oh yeah , that 's what they said about Cable 20 years ago... Sure you might have on demand choices , but no different really .
I 'm sure if Hulu could make nicotine waft out of your computer they 'd do that too .
It 's all about making money , addicts are easy to sell to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'd gladly pay some for commercial free TV...  oh yeah, that's what they said about Cable 20 years ago...  Sure you might have on demand choices, but no different really.
I'm sure if Hulu could make nicotine waft out of your computer they'd do that too.
It's all about making money, addicts are easy to sell to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855061</id>
	<title>tv....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256379960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>time to start watching tv...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>time to start watching tv.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>time to start watching tv...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859881</id>
	<title>Re:To make it a good service...</title>
	<author>/dev/trash</author>
	<datestamp>1256380140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$5/month is not going to pay the people who need to be paid.  The actors and crew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 5/month is not going to pay the people who need to be paid .
The actors and crew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$5/month is not going to pay the people who need to be paid.
The actors and crew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854553</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1256324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing HBO with Cinemax.</p><p>Although, some scenes in True Blood are softcore porn.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing HBO with Cinemax.Although , some scenes in True Blood are softcore porn.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing HBO with Cinemax.Although, some scenes in True Blood are softcore porn.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29858115</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>Sri Ramkrishna</author>
	<datestamp>1256410860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for. Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.</i> </p><p>Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads? When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place? I do.</p><p>And somehow, 20 years later, cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads. Literally, ads on top of ads. (you know, when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad, and it happens while other ads are playing?)</p><p>Now Hulu comes along. it's got decent shows, a decent experience, and doesn't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads, and it's FREE. Any surprise it's popular?</p><p>Give it a few years. Then you'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads, if history is any lesson.</p></div><p>No I won't.  I'll be reading e-books with embedded commercials in them instead after I ran away from tvs and their commercials, keep those tree books around cuz ebooks is next for the the commercialization !:)


sri</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If true , I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for .
Not sure how that would work currently , but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for * quality * programming .
Remember when buying cable meant you did n't have to watch ads ?
When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place ?
I do.And somehow , 20 years later , cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads .
Literally , ads on top of ads .
( you know , when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad , and it happens while other ads are playing ?
) Now Hulu comes along .
it 's got decent shows , a decent experience , and does n't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads , and it 's FREE .
Any surprise it 's popular ? Give it a few years .
Then you 'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads , if history is any lesson.No I wo n't .
I 'll be reading e-books with embedded commercials in them instead after I ran away from tvs and their commercials , keep those tree books around cuz ebooks is next for the the commercialization !
: ) sri</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for.
Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.
Remember when buying cable meant you didn't have to watch ads?
When that was one of the big selling points of buying cable in the first place?
I do.And somehow, 20 years later, cable TV comes with oodles and oodles of ads.
Literally, ads on top of ads.
(you know, when they take 2 inches off the bottom of the screen to put an ad, and it happens while other ads are playing?
)Now Hulu comes along.
it's got decent shows, a decent experience, and doesn't crush your consciousness with ads on top of ads, and it's FREE.
Any surprise it's popular?Give it a few years.
Then you'll be PAYING for access to shows riddled with ads on top of ads, if history is any lesson.No I won't.
I'll be reading e-books with embedded commercials in them instead after I ran away from tvs and their commercials, keep those tree books around cuz ebooks is next for the the commercialization !
:)


sri
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854367</id>
	<title>Depends on your definition of Free.</title>
	<author>rezonat0r</author>
	<datestamp>1256320620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry Hulu, but calling it the "free-to-air" model is dubious at best.  Any time we are receiving advertising over websites/TV/radio/Hulu, we are a product being delivered to advertisers.</p><p>Hulu, you run plenty of ads.  The idea that you are not making any money, or that your service is free in any sense beyond the most narrow interpretation, is absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry Hulu , but calling it the " free-to-air " model is dubious at best .
Any time we are receiving advertising over websites/TV/radio/Hulu , we are a product being delivered to advertisers.Hulu , you run plenty of ads .
The idea that you are not making any money , or that your service is free in any sense beyond the most narrow interpretation , is absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry Hulu, but calling it the "free-to-air" model is dubious at best.
Any time we are receiving advertising over websites/TV/radio/Hulu, we are a product being delivered to advertisers.Hulu, you run plenty of ads.
The idea that you are not making any money, or that your service is free in any sense beyond the most narrow interpretation, is absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854203</id>
	<title>hey, geniuses</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1256318340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if it is composed as bits, and it is consumed as bits (books, music, movies/ tv), consumers will pay nothing or very little for it</p><p>this is the future, deal with it</p><p>and no dear content panic brigade: plenty of books, music, movies/ tv will still be made. high quality and at high cost. as if free internet content is a threat to content creation: it isn't, its free adertising for the creators. music is consumed at concerts, movies in cinemas, and books in beds/ trains. and this makes cash as well as a whole huge range on ancillary streams: endorsements, toylines, speeches, movie script treatments, spokesperson, etc...</p><p>what kind anarchist communist thinking is this?</p><p>gee, i dunno. its called the business model that saw the rise of radio, and sustained television for free over the airways for decades: ADVERTISING. you give your content away FOR FREE, and your content is supported by ANCILLARY STREAMS OF REVENUE. you don't put moronic tollbooths that are broken anyways on top of access to your content. no one is going to pay it, you'll just make a lot less money than if you provided free access and depended on ancillary streams</p><p>do you think the business model of radio and television in the 1950s is some antiamuricun socialism? no? then why are your panties in a twist over free digital content?</p><p>but go ahead hulu, reduce your viewership by a thousandth or a millionth. you're geniuses, really, we can bring the business model of vinyl and cassette tapes to the internet. yeah, go for it</p><p>fucking morons</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if it is composed as bits , and it is consumed as bits ( books , music , movies/ tv ) , consumers will pay nothing or very little for itthis is the future , deal with itand no dear content panic brigade : plenty of books , music , movies/ tv will still be made .
high quality and at high cost .
as if free internet content is a threat to content creation : it is n't , its free adertising for the creators .
music is consumed at concerts , movies in cinemas , and books in beds/ trains .
and this makes cash as well as a whole huge range on ancillary streams : endorsements , toylines , speeches , movie script treatments , spokesperson , etc...what kind anarchist communist thinking is this ? gee , i dunno .
its called the business model that saw the rise of radio , and sustained television for free over the airways for decades : ADVERTISING .
you give your content away FOR FREE , and your content is supported by ANCILLARY STREAMS OF REVENUE .
you do n't put moronic tollbooths that are broken anyways on top of access to your content .
no one is going to pay it , you 'll just make a lot less money than if you provided free access and depended on ancillary streamsdo you think the business model of radio and television in the 1950s is some antiamuricun socialism ?
no ? then why are your panties in a twist over free digital content ? but go ahead hulu , reduce your viewership by a thousandth or a millionth .
you 're geniuses , really , we can bring the business model of vinyl and cassette tapes to the internet .
yeah , go for itfucking morons</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it is composed as bits, and it is consumed as bits (books, music, movies/ tv), consumers will pay nothing or very little for itthis is the future, deal with itand no dear content panic brigade: plenty of books, music, movies/ tv will still be made.
high quality and at high cost.
as if free internet content is a threat to content creation: it isn't, its free adertising for the creators.
music is consumed at concerts, movies in cinemas, and books in beds/ trains.
and this makes cash as well as a whole huge range on ancillary streams: endorsements, toylines, speeches, movie script treatments, spokesperson, etc...what kind anarchist communist thinking is this?gee, i dunno.
its called the business model that saw the rise of radio, and sustained television for free over the airways for decades: ADVERTISING.
you give your content away FOR FREE, and your content is supported by ANCILLARY STREAMS OF REVENUE.
you don't put moronic tollbooths that are broken anyways on top of access to your content.
no one is going to pay it, you'll just make a lot less money than if you provided free access and depended on ancillary streamsdo you think the business model of radio and television in the 1950s is some antiamuricun socialism?
no? then why are your panties in a twist over free digital content?but go ahead hulu, reduce your viewership by a thousandth or a millionth.
you're geniuses, really, we can bring the business model of vinyl and cassette tapes to the internet.
yeah, go for itfucking morons</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856325</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256396340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In fact, if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $5/month, I might consider that as well." <br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; That will never happen. What <i>will</i> happen is they will charge $5/month and keep the advertisements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In fact , if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $ 5/month , I might consider that as well .
"     That will never happen .
What will happen is they will charge $ 5/month and keep the advertisements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In fact, if they offered to give me ad-free programming for something like $5/month, I might consider that as well.
" 
  
  That will never happen.
What will happen is they will charge $5/month and keep the advertisements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854165</id>
	<title>Maybe it would work..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they got off their asses and let hulu work on your tv.. the fact its limited to computer or media center hacks keeps people from enjoying it enough to replace OTA or cable strongholds.</p><p>yes.. i know it can be done, but they don't make it easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they got off their asses and let hulu work on your tv.. the fact its limited to computer or media center hacks keeps people from enjoying it enough to replace OTA or cable strongholds.yes.. i know it can be done , but they do n't make it easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they got off their asses and let hulu work on your tv.. the fact its limited to computer or media center hacks keeps people from enjoying it enough to replace OTA or cable strongholds.yes.. i know it can be done, but they don't make it easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854737</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1256327580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yup, I'm not gonna pay for it.</p></div><p>Nor I.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm a little surprised they couldn't make it work with the ad model. But then lots of us know how to block ads on hulu.</p></div><p>It's weird that they leave it one the honor system like that.  If one commercial fails to load, it really should try another one.  If someone has blocked all ads, they shouldn't be able to download content.</p><p>I'm not blaming you (or others).  It just baffles me that they haven't taken any steps at all to prevent this.  I occasionally get the 30 second black screen with white text.  All that means is that somebody's server was annoying me, and got itself blacklisted on my system.  (To counter this, they really should run their own DNS server and hand out sub-domains to their advertizing partners.  If I block *.ads.hulu.com, I shouldn't be allowed content.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I wouldn't have a problem with ads if they didn't run the same #(*#$*# ad six times in he space of a 40 minute block.</p></div><p>I hear you.  Frankly, I'm surprised that adds are tied so darn closely with the specific show you're watching.  This results in seeing the same 2 or 3 adds over and over and over... ad infinitum (pun unintended).  If I vote down an ad more than once, I don't want to ever see that ad again.  There's no reason to do so.  They have plenty of other ads I'd be willing to view instead.  (They're just unwilling to show them alongside the show I'm watching right now... but they had no problem show me on the last show I saw.  *sigh*)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I 'm not gon na pay for it.Nor I.I 'm a little surprised they could n't make it work with the ad model .
But then lots of us know how to block ads on hulu.It 's weird that they leave it one the honor system like that .
If one commercial fails to load , it really should try another one .
If someone has blocked all ads , they should n't be able to download content.I 'm not blaming you ( or others ) .
It just baffles me that they have n't taken any steps at all to prevent this .
I occasionally get the 30 second black screen with white text .
All that means is that somebody 's server was annoying me , and got itself blacklisted on my system .
( To counter this , they really should run their own DNS server and hand out sub-domains to their advertizing partners .
If I block * .ads.hulu.com , I should n't be allowed content .
) I would n't have a problem with ads if they did n't run the same # ( * # $ * # ad six times in he space of a 40 minute block.I hear you .
Frankly , I 'm surprised that adds are tied so darn closely with the specific show you 're watching .
This results in seeing the same 2 or 3 adds over and over and over... ad infinitum ( pun unintended ) .
If I vote down an ad more than once , I do n't want to ever see that ad again .
There 's no reason to do so .
They have plenty of other ads I 'd be willing to view instead .
( They 're just unwilling to show them alongside the show I 'm watching right now... but they had no problem show me on the last show I saw .
* sigh * )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I'm not gonna pay for it.Nor I.I'm a little surprised they couldn't make it work with the ad model.
But then lots of us know how to block ads on hulu.It's weird that they leave it one the honor system like that.
If one commercial fails to load, it really should try another one.
If someone has blocked all ads, they shouldn't be able to download content.I'm not blaming you (or others).
It just baffles me that they haven't taken any steps at all to prevent this.
I occasionally get the 30 second black screen with white text.
All that means is that somebody's server was annoying me, and got itself blacklisted on my system.
(To counter this, they really should run their own DNS server and hand out sub-domains to their advertizing partners.
If I block *.ads.hulu.com, I shouldn't be allowed content.
)I wouldn't have a problem with ads if they didn't run the same #(*#$*# ad six times in he space of a 40 minute block.I hear you.
Frankly, I'm surprised that adds are tied so darn closely with the specific show you're watching.
This results in seeing the same 2 or 3 adds over and over and over... ad infinitum (pun unintended).
If I vote down an ad more than once, I don't want to ever see that ad again.
There's no reason to do so.
They have plenty of other ads I'd be willing to view instead.
(They're just unwilling to show them alongside the show I'm watching right now... but they had no problem show me on the last show I saw.
*sigh*)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856387</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline, ok subscription ...</title>
	<author>Herschel Cohen</author>
	<datestamp>1256396820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pricing is reduced by the number and duration of the confirmed number of advertisements you watch per month*.</p><p>What could be more fair?</p><p>Rupert Murdoch/hc<br>News Corp**</p><p>* provided you have a sufficiently attractive consumer profile</p><p>** aka News Corporation for You</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pricing is reduced by the number and duration of the confirmed number of advertisements you watch per month * .What could be more fair ? Rupert Murdoch/hcNews Corp * * * provided you have a sufficiently attractive consumer profile * * aka News Corporation for You</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pricing is reduced by the number and duration of the confirmed number of advertisements you watch per month*.What could be more fair?Rupert Murdoch/hcNews Corp*** provided you have a sufficiently attractive consumer profile** aka News Corporation for You</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854179</id>
	<title>netflix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I wouldnt just subscribe to netflix because? I dont even use the free hulu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I wouldnt just subscribe to netflix because ?
I dont even use the free hulu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I wouldnt just subscribe to netflix because?
I dont even use the free hulu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855927</id>
	<title>Wave of the future? Consider cable cost</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1256392800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems so strange to me. People will pay $150 a month for cable television, but the same people would be outraged to pay even the modest fee to get the same content over the internet.</p><p>Maybe all TV should be like hulu. You could watch what you want, when you want. Not pay for 200 channels of crap that you don't want. Not burn up all that bandwidth for those channels you don't want. Just pay for internet, and a small content fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems so strange to me .
People will pay $ 150 a month for cable television , but the same people would be outraged to pay even the modest fee to get the same content over the internet.Maybe all TV should be like hulu .
You could watch what you want , when you want .
Not pay for 200 channels of crap that you do n't want .
Not burn up all that bandwidth for those channels you do n't want .
Just pay for internet , and a small content fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems so strange to me.
People will pay $150 a month for cable television, but the same people would be outraged to pay even the modest fee to get the same content over the internet.Maybe all TV should be like hulu.
You could watch what you want, when you want.
Not pay for 200 channels of crap that you don't want.
Not burn up all that bandwidth for those channels you don't want.
Just pay for internet, and a small content fee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859469</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>centuren</author>
	<datestamp>1256377440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want to pay about $15/mo to be able to download(1) TV shows at the same time they air in an patent-free, DRM-free(2) format(3).</p><p>(2) Apple is DRM free now and they're<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b&gt;. You could easily become the iTunes of the TV Show world.</p></div><p>I have looked at the TV offerings on iTunes from time to time, and I'm always shocked that it's there. Apparently, people buy TV shows through iTunes. I understand the desire, but the prices for popular shows are incredible! I know people will pay for convenience, but a season pass shouldn't be more expensive than a DVD box set, especially if the show is already released to DVD. More to the point, there are a lot of TV shows I like, but very few of them I like enough to put out that money for, on DVD or otherwise.</p><p>Hulu let's me watch many of these shows, and in return I let their ads play. Sometimes it's frustrating that I can't go back and watch a new series from the start, since it's too far in and the early episodes have expired. It can also be annoying to have to set up a laptop in the living room to share an episode on Hulu with the family. Still, I think DVD sales make a huge amount of money for TV networks, and the iTunes price reflects what it would cost <i>per show</i> to download episodes in any form that might substitute for having to at least rent the DVD.</p><p>I don't think we'll see a subscription service like you describe, but I would be content with being able to stream shows, just as Hulu does, but with more networks and a larger on-demand library. And, of course, I feel subscription fee should equal no ads. With a good delivery system, I'd even be happy to subscribe to some networksdirectly. How many $2/mo subscribers do you think Adult Swim would need to start making more money than they do now as a bundled minor network with advertisers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to pay about $ 15/mo to be able to download ( 1 ) TV shows at the same time they air in an patent-free , DRM-free ( 2 ) format ( 3 ) .
( 2 ) Apple is DRM free now and they 're /b &gt; .
You could easily become the iTunes of the TV Show world.I have looked at the TV offerings on iTunes from time to time , and I 'm always shocked that it 's there .
Apparently , people buy TV shows through iTunes .
I understand the desire , but the prices for popular shows are incredible !
I know people will pay for convenience , but a season pass should n't be more expensive than a DVD box set , especially if the show is already released to DVD .
More to the point , there are a lot of TV shows I like , but very few of them I like enough to put out that money for , on DVD or otherwise.Hulu let 's me watch many of these shows , and in return I let their ads play .
Sometimes it 's frustrating that I ca n't go back and watch a new series from the start , since it 's too far in and the early episodes have expired .
It can also be annoying to have to set up a laptop in the living room to share an episode on Hulu with the family .
Still , I think DVD sales make a huge amount of money for TV networks , and the iTunes price reflects what it would cost per show to download episodes in any form that might substitute for having to at least rent the DVD.I do n't think we 'll see a subscription service like you describe , but I would be content with being able to stream shows , just as Hulu does , but with more networks and a larger on-demand library .
And , of course , I feel subscription fee should equal no ads .
With a good delivery system , I 'd even be happy to subscribe to some networksdirectly .
How many $ 2/mo subscribers do you think Adult Swim would need to start making more money than they do now as a bundled minor network with advertisers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to pay about $15/mo to be able to download(1) TV shows at the same time they air in an patent-free, DRM-free(2) format(3).
(2) Apple is DRM free now and they're /b&gt;.
You could easily become the iTunes of the TV Show world.I have looked at the TV offerings on iTunes from time to time, and I'm always shocked that it's there.
Apparently, people buy TV shows through iTunes.
I understand the desire, but the prices for popular shows are incredible!
I know people will pay for convenience, but a season pass shouldn't be more expensive than a DVD box set, especially if the show is already released to DVD.
More to the point, there are a lot of TV shows I like, but very few of them I like enough to put out that money for, on DVD or otherwise.Hulu let's me watch many of these shows, and in return I let their ads play.
Sometimes it's frustrating that I can't go back and watch a new series from the start, since it's too far in and the early episodes have expired.
It can also be annoying to have to set up a laptop in the living room to share an episode on Hulu with the family.
Still, I think DVD sales make a huge amount of money for TV networks, and the iTunes price reflects what it would cost per show to download episodes in any form that might substitute for having to at least rent the DVD.I don't think we'll see a subscription service like you describe, but I would be content with being able to stream shows, just as Hulu does, but with more networks and a larger on-demand library.
And, of course, I feel subscription fee should equal no ads.
With a good delivery system, I'd even be happy to subscribe to some networksdirectly.
How many $2/mo subscribers do you think Adult Swim would need to start making more money than they do now as a bundled minor network with advertisers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854445</id>
	<title>Oh noes.</title>
	<author>Spewns</author>
	<datestamp>1256321820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I have to continue not visiting Hulu! There's nothing on there you can't find ad-free elsewhere. If this were about YouTube, it might be newsworthy, but I'm not exactly shocked that a site ran by the likes of NBC/General Electric, ABC/Disney, and Murdoch are going to attempt to gouge as much money as they can from people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I have to continue not visiting Hulu !
There 's nothing on there you ca n't find ad-free elsewhere .
If this were about YouTube , it might be newsworthy , but I 'm not exactly shocked that a site ran by the likes of NBC/General Electric , ABC/Disney , and Murdoch are going to attempt to gouge as much money as they can from people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I have to continue not visiting Hulu!
There's nothing on there you can't find ad-free elsewhere.
If this were about YouTube, it might be newsworthy, but I'm not exactly shocked that a site ran by the likes of NBC/General Electric, ABC/Disney, and Murdoch are going to attempt to gouge as much money as they can from people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29863213</id>
	<title>Tomorrow never dies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256467320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not surpriced at this. Over in the UK we get the BBC iPlayer for "free", paid by the Licence Fee - and no bloody adverts. Little Murdoch Jnr. has recently stated that the Licence Fee and the BBC charter to which it belongs represents an uneven playing field and is not fair on other broadcasters.</p><p>News Corp (specifically "The Sun") has recently changed its political support from the Labour Government to the Conservatives. The Conservative shadow culture minisiter recently stated that the BBC charter, up for review in 2015 may be radically altered to give other broadcasters a "fair share". See any conflict of interest here?</p><p>Murdoch has been working towards the dismantling of the BBC since Sky took off in the '80s (subscription service WITH adverts). I'll throw the TV out before I take the Murdoch shilling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not surpriced at this .
Over in the UK we get the BBC iPlayer for " free " , paid by the Licence Fee - and no bloody adverts .
Little Murdoch Jnr .
has recently stated that the Licence Fee and the BBC charter to which it belongs represents an uneven playing field and is not fair on other broadcasters.News Corp ( specifically " The Sun " ) has recently changed its political support from the Labour Government to the Conservatives .
The Conservative shadow culture minisiter recently stated that the BBC charter , up for review in 2015 may be radically altered to give other broadcasters a " fair share " .
See any conflict of interest here ? Murdoch has been working towards the dismantling of the BBC since Sky took off in the '80s ( subscription service WITH adverts ) .
I 'll throw the TV out before I take the Murdoch shilling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not surpriced at this.
Over in the UK we get the BBC iPlayer for "free", paid by the Licence Fee - and no bloody adverts.
Little Murdoch Jnr.
has recently stated that the Licence Fee and the BBC charter to which it belongs represents an uneven playing field and is not fair on other broadcasters.News Corp (specifically "The Sun") has recently changed its political support from the Labour Government to the Conservatives.
The Conservative shadow culture minisiter recently stated that the BBC charter, up for review in 2015 may be radically altered to give other broadcasters a "fair share".
See any conflict of interest here?Murdoch has been working towards the dismantling of the BBC since Sky took off in the '80s (subscription service WITH adverts).
I'll throw the TV out before I take the Murdoch shilling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854159</id>
	<title>No more free TV?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There went 90\% of their users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There went 90 \ % of their users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There went 90\% of their users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854501</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>orlanz</author>
	<datestamp>1256322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember those times.  It wasn't ad free, but premium cables' benefit was almost no ads.  Today, the actual "content" seems to have been reduced quite a bit.  The time wasted is up, with the value add down, is it any wonder that the consumer is looking at alternatives.  We used to call milking the crowd in running the "A-Team" in the afternoon and a rerun late night but today, that term doesn't do any justice.<br><br>1) The obvious is the reruns.  God, there are so many; nuff said on that.<br><br>2) These days, most ads seem to be about OTHER shows on the same channel.  Do people really need to be told 3-4 times over that "A new Grey's Anatomy is coming up next"?  I am sure that viewership not only knows that, but already figured out how to set up the DVR/Tivo, and whom/where to write death-threats to in case of a rumored canceling.<br><br>3) Why do many shows do a recap of the previous show for more than a minute?  People who missed the show probably won't get much from a recap and people who didn't, don't need it!!<br><br>4) Why do many shows do a "preview" before the start of the show and before every commercial break?  And then a small introduction after the ads?  Finally a "Next week on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." at ending the show?  Skip all this crap and put up the credits longer or something or maybe even more ads!<br><br>5) Most channels are just copy cats.  Some idiot gets a retarded idea (survivor, real life,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) and because the brain dead public [we think] eats it up (as there is nothing else to watch), ever bloody network copies it with their own version.  NO one wants to take a risk with new ideas, cause they are too scared!  The public is made even dumber by being bombarded by the same drivel on all 100 channels.<br><br>6) Have the seasons gotten shorter?  And I am not talking about just the writers strike.  There seem to be so few episodes aired for so many shows.  Actors seem to take longer vacations than teachers!  Hell, many of them don't even have paid actors!<br><br>All in all, there just seems to be so much "wasted" air time through out the day that you would think that the providers would either use it to increase the value-add content or put up more ads.  TV used to be like steak, apple pie, and sushi; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring.  Our society has gone from offering the next greatest new thing to limiting what's on the shelf so that people are forced to settle for something as its better than nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember those times .
It was n't ad free , but premium cables ' benefit was almost no ads .
Today , the actual " content " seems to have been reduced quite a bit .
The time wasted is up , with the value add down , is it any wonder that the consumer is looking at alternatives .
We used to call milking the crowd in running the " A-Team " in the afternoon and a rerun late night but today , that term does n't do any justice.1 ) The obvious is the reruns .
God , there are so many ; nuff said on that.2 ) These days , most ads seem to be about OTHER shows on the same channel .
Do people really need to be told 3-4 times over that " A new Grey 's Anatomy is coming up next " ?
I am sure that viewership not only knows that , but already figured out how to set up the DVR/Tivo , and whom/where to write death-threats to in case of a rumored canceling.3 ) Why do many shows do a recap of the previous show for more than a minute ?
People who missed the show probably wo n't get much from a recap and people who did n't , do n't need it !
! 4 ) Why do many shows do a " preview " before the start of the show and before every commercial break ?
And then a small introduction after the ads ?
Finally a " Next week on ... " at ending the show ?
Skip all this crap and put up the credits longer or something or maybe even more ads ! 5 ) Most channels are just copy cats .
Some idiot gets a retarded idea ( survivor , real life , ... ) and because the brain dead public [ we think ] eats it up ( as there is nothing else to watch ) , ever bloody network copies it with their own version .
NO one wants to take a risk with new ideas , cause they are too scared !
The public is made even dumber by being bombarded by the same drivel on all 100 channels.6 ) Have the seasons gotten shorter ?
And I am not talking about just the writers strike .
There seem to be so few episodes aired for so many shows .
Actors seem to take longer vacations than teachers !
Hell , many of them do n't even have paid actors ! All in all , there just seems to be so much " wasted " air time through out the day that you would think that the providers would either use it to increase the value-add content or put up more ads .
TV used to be like steak , apple pie , and sushi ; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring .
Our society has gone from offering the next greatest new thing to limiting what 's on the shelf so that people are forced to settle for something as its better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember those times.
It wasn't ad free, but premium cables' benefit was almost no ads.
Today, the actual "content" seems to have been reduced quite a bit.
The time wasted is up, with the value add down, is it any wonder that the consumer is looking at alternatives.
We used to call milking the crowd in running the "A-Team" in the afternoon and a rerun late night but today, that term doesn't do any justice.1) The obvious is the reruns.
God, there are so many; nuff said on that.2) These days, most ads seem to be about OTHER shows on the same channel.
Do people really need to be told 3-4 times over that "A new Grey's Anatomy is coming up next"?
I am sure that viewership not only knows that, but already figured out how to set up the DVR/Tivo, and whom/where to write death-threats to in case of a rumored canceling.3) Why do many shows do a recap of the previous show for more than a minute?
People who missed the show probably won't get much from a recap and people who didn't, don't need it!
!4) Why do many shows do a "preview" before the start of the show and before every commercial break?
And then a small introduction after the ads?
Finally a "Next week on ..." at ending the show?
Skip all this crap and put up the credits longer or something or maybe even more ads!5) Most channels are just copy cats.
Some idiot gets a retarded idea (survivor, real life, ...) and because the brain dead public [we think] eats it up (as there is nothing else to watch), ever bloody network copies it with their own version.
NO one wants to take a risk with new ideas, cause they are too scared!
The public is made even dumber by being bombarded by the same drivel on all 100 channels.6) Have the seasons gotten shorter?
And I am not talking about just the writers strike.
There seem to be so few episodes aired for so many shows.
Actors seem to take longer vacations than teachers!
Hell, many of them don't even have paid actors!All in all, there just seems to be so much "wasted" air time through out the day that you would think that the providers would either use it to increase the value-add content or put up more ads.
TV used to be like steak, apple pie, and sushi; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring.
Our society has gone from offering the next greatest new thing to limiting what's on the shelf so that people are forced to settle for something as its better than nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29858287</id>
	<title>Charge the ISP's</title>
	<author>stwf</author>
	<datestamp>1256411940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it possible they won't charge the consumers, but instead take payments from ISPs to clear their traffic? Around here FIOs and Cablevision are in a death match to get subscribers. If only one of them were able to have subscribers viewing Hulu that would be a clear advantage. The other would have to counter.<br>How much is that worth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it possible they wo n't charge the consumers , but instead take payments from ISPs to clear their traffic ?
Around here FIOs and Cablevision are in a death match to get subscribers .
If only one of them were able to have subscribers viewing Hulu that would be a clear advantage .
The other would have to counter.How much is that worth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it possible they won't charge the consumers, but instead take payments from ISPs to clear their traffic?
Around here FIOs and Cablevision are in a death match to get subscribers.
If only one of them were able to have subscribers viewing Hulu that would be a clear advantage.
The other would have to counter.How much is that worth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854883</id>
	<title>Why would they need to charge?</title>
	<author>Psychochild</author>
	<datestamp>1256417520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember TV stars saying that Hulu was a system to turn human brains to mush to make them easier to consume.  Charging for it is going to hinder that plan, it makes no sense!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...wait a moment, did Hollywood lie to me?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember TV stars saying that Hulu was a system to turn human brains to mush to make them easier to consume .
Charging for it is going to hinder that plan , it makes no sense !
...wait a moment , did Hollywood lie to me ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember TV stars saying that Hulu was a system to turn human brains to mush to make them easier to consume.
Charging for it is going to hinder that plan, it makes no sense!
...wait a moment, did Hollywood lie to me?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854225</id>
	<title>whats wrong with ad supported tv?!</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1256318760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OTA tv has been supported by ads for the last 50 years, why is it that media companys suddenly think this model doesn't work? people skipping ads isn't any worse then them ignoring them, hell i've been muting the fucking things for years. maybe try targeting their ads and making them less annoying (and not turning up the volume) and people might feel the need to skip them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTA tv has been supported by ads for the last 50 years , why is it that media companys suddenly think this model does n't work ?
people skipping ads is n't any worse then them ignoring them , hell i 've been muting the fucking things for years .
maybe try targeting their ads and making them less annoying ( and not turning up the volume ) and people might feel the need to skip them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTA tv has been supported by ads for the last 50 years, why is it that media companys suddenly think this model doesn't work?
people skipping ads isn't any worse then them ignoring them, hell i've been muting the fucking things for years.
maybe try targeting their ads and making them less annoying (and not turning up the volume) and people might feel the need to skip them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856623</id>
	<title>Just like Netflix Instaview</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1256399160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but have you seen the selection of instantly watchable content on Netflix?  This is basically what Hulu is considering.  It's crap.  Utter, and pointless crap.  About 1\% of the selections are current big budget movies, the rest is stuff from the 70's or movies that were so bad that they never even made it to the theater.  There are of course the few classic gems, but do you ever think you're going to see Star Wars up there?  Not a chance.  The big studios will NEVER loosen the grips on their money makers to the likes of Instaview.  They are going wring every last cent out of it... forever.  Why?  Because they're idiots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but have you seen the selection of instantly watchable content on Netflix ?
This is basically what Hulu is considering .
It 's crap .
Utter , and pointless crap .
About 1 \ % of the selections are current big budget movies , the rest is stuff from the 70 's or movies that were so bad that they never even made it to the theater .
There are of course the few classic gems , but do you ever think you 're going to see Star Wars up there ?
Not a chance .
The big studios will NEVER loosen the grips on their money makers to the likes of Instaview .
They are going wring every last cent out of it... forever. Why ?
Because they 're idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but have you seen the selection of instantly watchable content on Netflix?
This is basically what Hulu is considering.
It's crap.
Utter, and pointless crap.
About 1\% of the selections are current big budget movies, the rest is stuff from the 70's or movies that were so bad that they never even made it to the theater.
There are of course the few classic gems, but do you ever think you're going to see Star Wars up there?
Not a chance.
The big studios will NEVER loosen the grips on their money makers to the likes of Instaview.
They are going wring every last cent out of it... forever.  Why?
Because they're idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862063</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>cboslin</author>
	<datestamp>1256402460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(3) I humbly suggest AAC or Vorbis audio; H264, Theora, or Dirac video; Matroska or Ogg container. (Again, set-top box programmers will love you, and every PC/Mac/etc will play it too. Make it easy for people to do business with you and they will.)</p></div><p>Someone mode this up!  Open source codecs are the ONLY way to go for any provider that is honestly interested in providing service to ALL.

</p><p>The above post probably got marked down by some DRM lovers...while I agree with the sentiment, the Hollywood / corporate model is too deeply entrenched with DRM for them to ever leave it.

</p><p>For those of us that have been burned by DRM models and wasted money purchasing products that would not play because of them, we are twice shy of DRM (in any form).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( 3 ) I humbly suggest AAC or Vorbis audio ; H264 , Theora , or Dirac video ; Matroska or Ogg container .
( Again , set-top box programmers will love you , and every PC/Mac/etc will play it too .
Make it easy for people to do business with you and they will .
) Someone mode this up !
Open source codecs are the ONLY way to go for any provider that is honestly interested in providing service to ALL .
The above post probably got marked down by some DRM lovers...while I agree with the sentiment , the Hollywood / corporate model is too deeply entrenched with DRM for them to ever leave it .
For those of us that have been burned by DRM models and wasted money purchasing products that would not play because of them , we are twice shy of DRM ( in any form ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(3) I humbly suggest AAC or Vorbis audio; H264, Theora, or Dirac video; Matroska or Ogg container.
(Again, set-top box programmers will love you, and every PC/Mac/etc will play it too.
Make it easy for people to do business with you and they will.
)Someone mode this up!
Open source codecs are the ONLY way to go for any provider that is honestly interested in providing service to ALL.
The above post probably got marked down by some DRM lovers...while I agree with the sentiment, the Hollywood / corporate model is too deeply entrenched with DRM for them to ever leave it.
For those of us that have been burned by DRM models and wasted money purchasing products that would not play because of them, we are twice shy of DRM (in any form).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854397</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256321040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did not realize the Hulu viewers were 'bound' and therefore needed to be 'loosed' in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did not realize the Hulu viewers were 'bound ' and therefore needed to be 'loosed ' in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did not realize the Hulu viewers were 'bound' and therefore needed to be 'loosed' in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854379</id>
	<title>I'd consider it.</title>
	<author>BOFslime</author>
	<datestamp>1256320800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cable and Sat have gotten out of control, I don't watch enough tv to necessitate 1000+ channels while paying $50-$75/mo for it.<br>I canceled my cable a few months ago and have been souly utilizing Netflix for my viewing needs via my xbox360.  If hulu starts offering direct streaming services and in HD, via xbox, ps3 and/or web for all of its television content like netflix does for movies I would be willing to pay $5-$10-$15/mo for it and wouldn't mind some ad support.  Unchanged though, I wouldn't consider paying for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cable and Sat have gotten out of control , I do n't watch enough tv to necessitate 1000 + channels while paying $ 50- $ 75/mo for it.I canceled my cable a few months ago and have been souly utilizing Netflix for my viewing needs via my xbox360 .
If hulu starts offering direct streaming services and in HD , via xbox , ps3 and/or web for all of its television content like netflix does for movies I would be willing to pay $ 5- $ 10- $ 15/mo for it and would n't mind some ad support .
Unchanged though , I would n't consider paying for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cable and Sat have gotten out of control, I don't watch enough tv to necessitate 1000+ channels while paying $50-$75/mo for it.I canceled my cable a few months ago and have been souly utilizing Netflix for my viewing needs via my xbox360.
If hulu starts offering direct streaming services and in HD, via xbox, ps3 and/or web for all of its television content like netflix does for movies I would be willing to pay $5-$10-$15/mo for it and wouldn't mind some ad support.
Unchanged though, I wouldn't consider paying for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856875</id>
	<title>Pay and Ads</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1256401620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet after it goes pay it will still have ads.<br>Well, just like magazines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet after it goes pay it will still have ads.Well , just like magazines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet after it goes pay it will still have ads.Well, just like magazines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859715</id>
	<title>Re:Ads or Subs, not both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256379000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you need subtitles?  Are they adding anime now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you need subtitles ?
Are they adding anime now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you need subtitles?
Are they adding anime now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29860675</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1256387040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd spell and grammar check that potential headline first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd spell and grammar check that potential headline first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd spell and grammar check that potential headline first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29858043</id>
	<title>Other options - 200gig transfer in 15min...</title>
	<author>Lvdata</author>
	<datestamp>1256410440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other alternatives to Hulu. I once transferred 200+ gigs in 15 min of videos. ST-TOS S1, ST-DS9 S3, Doctor Who S2&amp;3 etc...  I just check out a bunch of full seasons from my local library here in Las Vegas, put them in my truck &amp; drove home. Free, full DVD at DVD quality return in 2 weeks. Can't beat it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other alternatives to Hulu .
I once transferred 200 + gigs in 15 min of videos .
ST-TOS S1 , ST-DS9 S3 , Doctor Who S2&amp;3 etc... I just check out a bunch of full seasons from my local library here in Las Vegas , put them in my truck &amp; drove home .
Free , full DVD at DVD quality return in 2 weeks .
Ca n't beat it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other alternatives to Hulu.
I once transferred 200+ gigs in 15 min of videos.
ST-TOS S1, ST-DS9 S3, Doctor Who S2&amp;3 etc...  I just check out a bunch of full seasons from my local library here in Las Vegas, put them in my truck &amp; drove home.
Free, full DVD at DVD quality return in 2 weeks.
Can't beat it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856035</id>
	<title>Re:Same here</title>
	<author>meyekul</author>
	<datestamp>1256393760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I pay about $30 per month for cable, and the only advantage it has over Hulu is that there is more of a selection.  However, it isn't really fair to call it a selection when someone else has selected it for me, and decided what time I can watch it.  Also at least 1/3 of it is commercial breaks.  If Hulu can improve its selection for $30 or less per month, I'll drop cable like a hot rock.  If they remove the 30 second ads for paid subscribers, I'd be a fool not to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay about $ 30 per month for cable , and the only advantage it has over Hulu is that there is more of a selection .
However , it is n't really fair to call it a selection when someone else has selected it for me , and decided what time I can watch it .
Also at least 1/3 of it is commercial breaks .
If Hulu can improve its selection for $ 30 or less per month , I 'll drop cable like a hot rock .
If they remove the 30 second ads for paid subscribers , I 'd be a fool not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay about $30 per month for cable, and the only advantage it has over Hulu is that there is more of a selection.
However, it isn't really fair to call it a selection when someone else has selected it for me, and decided what time I can watch it.
Also at least 1/3 of it is commercial breaks.
If Hulu can improve its selection for $30 or less per month, I'll drop cable like a hot rock.
If they remove the 30 second ads for paid subscribers, I'd be a fool not to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177</id>
	<title>Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1256317980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to this media journalist (http://gizmodo.com/5388745/how-a-paid-hulu-would-work):</p><p>"Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.'s Fox, GE's NBC Universal and Disney's ABC, doesn't plan on charging people to watch the stuff it's currently airing on the site-a mix of first-run shows from broadcast TV, a limited number of cable TV shows and a smattering of movies. But Hulu is trying to figure out how to create some kind of premium offering where you'll pay for stuff that isn't on the site right now."</p><p>If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for. Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to this media journalist ( http : //gizmodo.com/5388745/how-a-paid-hulu-would-work ) : " Hulu , the joint venture between News Corp. 's Fox , GE 's NBC Universal and Disney 's ABC , does n't plan on charging people to watch the stuff it 's currently airing on the site-a mix of first-run shows from broadcast TV , a limited number of cable TV shows and a smattering of movies .
But Hulu is trying to figure out how to create some kind of premium offering where you 'll pay for stuff that is n't on the site right now .
" If true , I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for .
Not sure how that would work currently , but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for * quality * programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to this media journalist (http://gizmodo.com/5388745/how-a-paid-hulu-would-work):"Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.'s Fox, GE's NBC Universal and Disney's ABC, doesn't plan on charging people to watch the stuff it's currently airing on the site-a mix of first-run shows from broadcast TV, a limited number of cable TV shows and a smattering of movies.
But Hulu is trying to figure out how to create some kind of premium offering where you'll pay for stuff that isn't on the site right now.
"If true, I think that is completely OK. A mix of free ad-supported content with premium high-quality content people are willing to pay for.
Not sure how that would work currently, but HBO has proven people are happy to pay for *quality* programming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854467</id>
	<title>Free-to-air isn't sustainable?</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1256322180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone should probably let broadcasters know about this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should probably let broadcasters know about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should probably let broadcasters know about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854153</id>
	<title>my vote goes to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>extending the unstoppable commercials to 60 seconds, gives me more time to run and get a drink/food or go take a quick leak.

But I won't be paying for any content that I currently get from Hulu for "free".</htmltext>
<tokenext>extending the unstoppable commercials to 60 seconds , gives me more time to run and get a drink/food or go take a quick leak .
But I wo n't be paying for any content that I currently get from Hulu for " free " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>extending the unstoppable commercials to 60 seconds, gives me more time to run and get a drink/food or go take a quick leak.
But I won't be paying for any content that I currently get from Hulu for "free".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29905297</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on what they mean by charging...</title>
	<author>ConceptJunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1256740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>TV used to be like steak, apple pie, and sushi; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring.</i></p><p>Wow I wish I'd lived in this mythical time.  TV was always 90\% crap.  Maybe today it's 95\% crap, but that hasn't changed radically.  Newt Minow didn't make his famous proclamation of TV being a "vast wasteland", it wasn't after watching "Melrose Place" or "Family Guy" or "Temptation Island", it was in 1961.  He was right.  He'd be right today too.</p><p>The biggest difference is that in the 60's it was 25 minutes of programming and 5 minutes of commercials.  Today it's 20 minutes of programming and 10 minutes of commercials.  At least Hulu brings that ratio back to something tolerable.  I don't block their commercials, although some of their commercials (like the Axe one mentioned above) might make me change my mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV used to be like steak , apple pie , and sushi ; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring.Wow I wish I 'd lived in this mythical time .
TV was always 90 \ % crap .
Maybe today it 's 95 \ % crap , but that has n't changed radically .
Newt Minow did n't make his famous proclamation of TV being a " vast wasteland " , it was n't after watching " Melrose Place " or " Family Guy " or " Temptation Island " , it was in 1961 .
He was right .
He 'd be right today too.The biggest difference is that in the 60 's it was 25 minutes of programming and 5 minutes of commercials .
Today it 's 20 minutes of programming and 10 minutes of commercials .
At least Hulu brings that ratio back to something tolerable .
I do n't block their commercials , although some of their commercials ( like the Axe one mentioned above ) might make me change my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV used to be like steak, apple pie, and sushi; now its just gravy with artificial flavoring.Wow I wish I'd lived in this mythical time.
TV was always 90\% crap.
Maybe today it's 95\% crap, but that hasn't changed radically.
Newt Minow didn't make his famous proclamation of TV being a "vast wasteland", it wasn't after watching "Melrose Place" or "Family Guy" or "Temptation Island", it was in 1961.
He was right.
He'd be right today too.The biggest difference is that in the 60's it was 25 minutes of programming and 5 minutes of commercials.
Today it's 20 minutes of programming and 10 minutes of commercials.
At least Hulu brings that ratio back to something tolerable.
I don't block their commercials, although some of their commercials (like the Axe one mentioned above) might make me change my mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854383</id>
	<title>Re:time to update headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, I'm not gonna pay for it. I'm a little surprised they couldn't make it work with the ad model. But then lots of us know how to block ads on hulu. I wouldn't have a problem with ads if they didn't run the same #(*#$*# ad six times in he space of a 40 minute block.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I 'm not gon na pay for it .
I 'm a little surprised they could n't make it work with the ad model .
But then lots of us know how to block ads on hulu .
I would n't have a problem with ads if they did n't run the same # ( * # $ * # ad six times in he space of a 40 minute block .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I'm not gonna pay for it.
I'm a little surprised they couldn't make it work with the ad model.
But then lots of us know how to block ads on hulu.
I wouldn't have a problem with ads if they didn't run the same #(*#$*# ad six times in he space of a 40 minute block.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854429</id>
	<title>Per-Show bundles are a good idea!</title>
	<author>Mitreya</author>
	<datestamp>1256321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I almost want them to sell show-based subscriptions.   Or allow me to donate money to the show balance.
I am worried that the fact that I religiously watch a few particular shows is not counted in the
rating of the show and that might lead it to die.  Perhaps if people could pay for subscriptions,
we could have saved Firefly before it got canceled!
<br> <br>
Of course I would probably want a view without ads if I am going to pay money for a subscription...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost want them to sell show-based subscriptions .
Or allow me to donate money to the show balance .
I am worried that the fact that I religiously watch a few particular shows is not counted in the rating of the show and that might lead it to die .
Perhaps if people could pay for subscriptions , we could have saved Firefly before it got canceled !
Of course I would probably want a view without ads if I am going to pay money for a subscription.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost want them to sell show-based subscriptions.
Or allow me to donate money to the show balance.
I am worried that the fact that I religiously watch a few particular shows is not counted in the
rating of the show and that might lead it to die.
Perhaps if people could pay for subscriptions,
we could have saved Firefly before it got canceled!
Of course I would probably want a view without ads if I am going to pay money for a subscription...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854247</id>
	<title>It's Hit the STREETS So Suck it Up and Enjoy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music</p><p>Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music</p><p>Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music</p><p>Slippin' away, sittin' on a pillow<br>Waitin' for night to fall<br>A girl and a dream, sittin' on a pillow<br>This is the night to go to the celebrity ball</p><p>Satin and lace, isn't it a pity<br>Didn't find time to call<br>Ready or not, gonna make it to the city<br>This is the night to go to the celebrity ball</p><p>Dress up tonight, why be lonely?<br>You'll stay at home and you'll be alone<br>So why be lonely?<br>Sittin' alone, sittin' on a pillow<br>Waitin' to climb the walls<br>Maybe tonight, depending how your dream goes<br>She'll open her eyes when she goes to the celebrity ball</p><p>Dress up tonight, why be lonely?<br>You'll stay at home and you'll be alone<br>So why be lonely?<br>Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Celebrate , celebrate , dance to the musicCelebrate , celebrate , dance to the musicCelebrate , celebrate , dance to the musicSlippin ' away , sittin ' on a pillowWaitin ' for night to fallA girl and a dream , sittin ' on a pillowThis is the night to go to the celebrity ballSatin and lace , is n't it a pityDid n't find time to callReady or not , gon na make it to the cityThis is the night to go to the celebrity ballDress up tonight , why be lonely ? You 'll stay at home and you 'll be aloneSo why be lonely ? Sittin ' alone , sittin ' on a pillowWaitin ' to climb the wallsMaybe tonight , depending how your dream goesShe 'll open her eyes when she goes to the celebrity ballDress up tonight , why be lonely ? You 'll stay at home and you 'll be aloneSo why be lonely ? Celebrate , celebrate , dance to the music</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the musicCelebrate, celebrate, dance to the musicCelebrate, celebrate, dance to the musicSlippin' away, sittin' on a pillowWaitin' for night to fallA girl and a dream, sittin' on a pillowThis is the night to go to the celebrity ballSatin and lace, isn't it a pityDidn't find time to callReady or not, gonna make it to the cityThis is the night to go to the celebrity ballDress up tonight, why be lonely?You'll stay at home and you'll be aloneSo why be lonely?Sittin' alone, sittin' on a pillowWaitin' to climb the wallsMaybe tonight, depending how your dream goesShe'll open her eyes when she goes to the celebrity ballDress up tonight, why be lonely?You'll stay at home and you'll be aloneSo why be lonely?Celebrate, celebrate, dance to the music</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29885171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29868299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29905297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29860675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29865593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29858115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2331236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854151
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854321
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29885171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856325
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856029
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854541
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856041
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859469
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862063
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855967
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856149
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29868299
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29865593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29860675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854425
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854751
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29862413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29861813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854501
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29905297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29858115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854377
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29855793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29859715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2331236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29854405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2331236.29856665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
