<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_06_1639252</id>
	<title>Cable Exec Suggests Changing Consumer Behavior, Not Business Model</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257533880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it.  Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "<a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1624136747.shtml">get consumers to change</a>" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand. <i>"'An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just does n't quite get it .
Comcast 's COO , Steve Burke , recently urged the TV industry to find ways to " get consumers to change " rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand .
" 'An entire generation is growing up , if we do n't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors , we 're going to wake up and see cord cutting .
' How many consumers , in any market , are focused on 'respecting ' vendors ' revenue streams ?
How , exactly , does he propose to effect this sea change ?
And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for , rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it.
Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "get consumers to change" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand.
"'An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.
' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams?
How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change?
And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011116</id>
	<title>Because buying a CD for 7.99 is too much to ask.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257510240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too much? If I had the money I'd spend 3 tymes that on vinyl I like.  I'd pay $30 for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_White\_Album" title="wikipedia.org">The White Album</a> [wikipedia.org] or $50 for some of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachman\%E2\%80\%93Turner\_Overdrive" title="wikipedia.org">Bachman-Turner Overdrive</a> [wikipedia.org], BTO, records.  "Let It Ride", <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You\_Ain't\_Seen\_Nothing\_Yet" title="wikipedia.org">You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takin'\_Care\_of\_Business" title="wikipedia.org">Takin' Care of Business</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too much ?
If I had the money I 'd spend 3 tymes that on vinyl I like .
I 'd pay $ 30 for The White Album [ wikipedia.org ] or $ 50 for some of Bachman-Turner Overdrive [ wikipedia.org ] , BTO , records .
" Let It Ride " , You Ai n't Seen Nothing Yet [ wikipedia.org ] , Takin ' Care of Business [ wikipedia.org ] Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too much?
If I had the money I'd spend 3 tymes that on vinyl I like.
I'd pay $30 for The White Album [wikipedia.org] or $50 for some of Bachman-Turner Overdrive [wikipedia.org], BTO, records.
"Let It Ride", You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet [wikipedia.org], Takin' Care of Business [wikipedia.org] 

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008738</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1257540960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And why, praytell, does a major production have to cost $250 million?  District 9, one of the most profitable and enjoyable movies of the year, cost a whopping $30 million to make.  And that's a movie with superb special effects, at least on par with Hollywoods $200+ million action movies.  They've made $200 million just in theaters, and probably will make double that once it is released to dvd and blu-ray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why , praytell , does a major production have to cost $ 250 million ?
District 9 , one of the most profitable and enjoyable movies of the year , cost a whopping $ 30 million to make .
And that 's a movie with superb special effects , at least on par with Hollywoods $ 200 + million action movies .
They 've made $ 200 million just in theaters , and probably will make double that once it is released to dvd and blu-ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why, praytell, does a major production have to cost $250 million?
District 9, one of the most profitable and enjoyable movies of the year, cost a whopping $30 million to make.
And that's a movie with superb special effects, at least on par with Hollywoods $200+ million action movies.
They've made $200 million just in theaters, and probably will make double that once it is released to dvd and blu-ray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008724</id>
	<title>Re:He's right</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257540900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So "what customers want" is what they are selling. That is established, it's a clear fact.</p></div></blockquote><p>Umm, no.</p><p>What customers want is the programs they want to watch.</p><p>What the cable companies are selling is bundles of hundreds of channels.</p><p>That's why he used the words "subscription revenue". What really scares the cable company is that Internet people understand that there is no technical reason why they can't be sold just the channels they want; and on the Internet, there's no reason why they can't be sold just the shows they want. Yet the content providers won't allow a la carte, so the cable companies can't give customers what they want.</p><p>If I could have subscribed to just the channels I actually watched, I'd have kept my satellite subscription. As it was, I was forced to pay for sports, news and movie channels which I literally never watched--and channels like ESPN are the most expensive part of your cable or satellite bill. So I made the rational decision--I cut the cord, and now I buy shows from iTunes or the PlayStation store. If the shows aren't available there, I go wherever I have to go to get them, whether it's hulu or BitTorrent. I'm willing to pay, but I'm not willing to pay for bundles of crap I don't want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So " what customers want " is what they are selling .
That is established , it 's a clear fact.Umm , no.What customers want is the programs they want to watch.What the cable companies are selling is bundles of hundreds of channels.That 's why he used the words " subscription revenue " .
What really scares the cable company is that Internet people understand that there is no technical reason why they ca n't be sold just the channels they want ; and on the Internet , there 's no reason why they ca n't be sold just the shows they want .
Yet the content providers wo n't allow a la carte , so the cable companies ca n't give customers what they want.If I could have subscribed to just the channels I actually watched , I 'd have kept my satellite subscription .
As it was , I was forced to pay for sports , news and movie channels which I literally never watched--and channels like ESPN are the most expensive part of your cable or satellite bill .
So I made the rational decision--I cut the cord , and now I buy shows from iTunes or the PlayStation store .
If the shows are n't available there , I go wherever I have to go to get them , whether it 's hulu or BitTorrent .
I 'm willing to pay , but I 'm not willing to pay for bundles of crap I do n't want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So "what customers want" is what they are selling.
That is established, it's a clear fact.Umm, no.What customers want is the programs they want to watch.What the cable companies are selling is bundles of hundreds of channels.That's why he used the words "subscription revenue".
What really scares the cable company is that Internet people understand that there is no technical reason why they can't be sold just the channels they want; and on the Internet, there's no reason why they can't be sold just the shows they want.
Yet the content providers won't allow a la carte, so the cable companies can't give customers what they want.If I could have subscribed to just the channels I actually watched, I'd have kept my satellite subscription.
As it was, I was forced to pay for sports, news and movie channels which I literally never watched--and channels like ESPN are the most expensive part of your cable or satellite bill.
So I made the rational decision--I cut the cord, and now I buy shows from iTunes or the PlayStation store.
If the shows aren't available there, I go wherever I have to go to get them, whether it's hulu or BitTorrent.
I'm willing to pay, but I'm not willing to pay for bundles of crap I don't want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30014176</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1257607800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say yes, if you watched the whole thing.But if you quit watching after 10 minutes, then no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say yes , if you watched the whole thing.But if you quit watching after 10 minutes , then no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say yes, if you watched the whole thing.But if you quit watching after 10 minutes, then no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064</id>
	<title>It's way too late for change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm raising my daughters completely away from the traditional media revenue stream.  We don't go to movies, we rent them when they come to DVD.  We don't watch broadcast TV at all.  They will be the next generation of media consumers, and there is no way that they are going to change in order to provide profits to the media companies.  I recall growing up watching a lot of TV.  So far my daughters are not being exposed to that lifestyle.  Maybe they will be the outliers, but if they are not media companies are in big trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm raising my daughters completely away from the traditional media revenue stream .
We do n't go to movies , we rent them when they come to DVD .
We do n't watch broadcast TV at all .
They will be the next generation of media consumers , and there is no way that they are going to change in order to provide profits to the media companies .
I recall growing up watching a lot of TV .
So far my daughters are not being exposed to that lifestyle .
Maybe they will be the outliers , but if they are not media companies are in big trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm raising my daughters completely away from the traditional media revenue stream.
We don't go to movies, we rent them when they come to DVD.
We don't watch broadcast TV at all.
They will be the next generation of media consumers, and there is no way that they are going to change in order to provide profits to the media companies.
I recall growing up watching a lot of TV.
So far my daughters are not being exposed to that lifestyle.
Maybe they will be the outliers, but if they are not media companies are in big trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008982</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257498840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken by someone that has never produced great art, I am sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken by someone that has never produced great art , I am sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken by someone that has never produced great art, I am sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008156</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1257538440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is because they've been screwing up for years.<br>Their marketing efforts have all been directed towards "Want our $FOO!"<br>Only now are they realizing, no, they really meant "BUY our $FOO!"  That's a much harder sell, because people naturally have an inclination to want things, and don't naturally have an inclination to pay for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because they 've been screwing up for years.Their marketing efforts have all been directed towards " Want our $ FOO !
" Only now are they realizing , no , they really meant " BUY our $ FOO !
" That 's a much harder sell , because people naturally have an inclination to want things , and do n't naturally have an inclination to pay for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because they've been screwing up for years.Their marketing efforts have all been directed towards "Want our $FOO!
"Only now are they realizing, no, they really meant "BUY our $FOO!
"  That's a much harder sell, because people naturally have an inclination to want things, and don't naturally have an inclination to pay for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008380</id>
	<title>In perspective:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"'An entire generation of business executives is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects taxes and regulations on the part of government, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.' How many businesses, in any industry, are focused on 'respecting' government revenue streams? How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change? And why not just develop policies that businesses will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change business behavior in such a fundamental way?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'An entire generation of business executives is growing up , if we do n't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects taxes and regulations on the part of government , we 're going to wake up and see cord cutting .
' How many businesses , in any industry , are focused on 'respecting ' government revenue streams ?
How , exactly , does he propose to effect this sea change ?
And why not just develop policies that businesses will willingly pay for , rather than trying to change business behavior in such a fundamental way ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'An entire generation of business executives is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects taxes and regulations on the part of government, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.
' How many businesses, in any industry, are focused on 'respecting' government revenue streams?
How, exactly, does he propose to effect this sea change?
And why not just develop policies that businesses will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change business behavior in such a fundamental way?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009200</id>
	<title>Just Cut the Cord</title>
	<author>IgnacioB</author>
	<datestamp>1257499680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I didn't get his memo, because I just bailed on Charter after what was a 4 year year detente with them.  I had been doing the bundled Internet and TV with HD DVR...and would do my annual call saying I wouldn't pay $140 a month for the full service, but would pay something like $110.  It took 30 minutes to get through to somebody and I was told I'd have to pay $120 and only get it for 6 months.

So, I said the words they haven't figured out yet.  "Cancel my TV entirely.  I'll just stick with Internet."

It was liberating.  It felt good.  They completely missed the point they were just about to lose out on 60\% of their revenue stream with me.

Now I'm on high-speed Internet for slightly less than $40 after tax for two years...and won't have to call them on the phone and wait in their stupid queue.

That and I'm playing the Hulu, Netflix, and other source for content game from my PC and even streaming it to my living room TV in high quality and not missing the Cable Pig.  Haven't yet figured out how to easily get to Discovery Channel, HBO, and Showtime...but working on it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

If a 40-something figures this out.....the cable industry should be seriously worried!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I did n't get his memo , because I just bailed on Charter after what was a 4 year year detente with them .
I had been doing the bundled Internet and TV with HD DVR...and would do my annual call saying I would n't pay $ 140 a month for the full service , but would pay something like $ 110 .
It took 30 minutes to get through to somebody and I was told I 'd have to pay $ 120 and only get it for 6 months .
So , I said the words they have n't figured out yet .
" Cancel my TV entirely .
I 'll just stick with Internet .
" It was liberating .
It felt good .
They completely missed the point they were just about to lose out on 60 \ % of their revenue stream with me .
Now I 'm on high-speed Internet for slightly less than $ 40 after tax for two years...and wo n't have to call them on the phone and wait in their stupid queue .
That and I 'm playing the Hulu , Netflix , and other source for content game from my PC and even streaming it to my living room TV in high quality and not missing the Cable Pig .
Have n't yet figured out how to easily get to Discovery Channel , HBO , and Showtime...but working on it .
; ) If a 40-something figures this out.....the cable industry should be seriously worried !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I didn't get his memo, because I just bailed on Charter after what was a 4 year year detente with them.
I had been doing the bundled Internet and TV with HD DVR...and would do my annual call saying I wouldn't pay $140 a month for the full service, but would pay something like $110.
It took 30 minutes to get through to somebody and I was told I'd have to pay $120 and only get it for 6 months.
So, I said the words they haven't figured out yet.
"Cancel my TV entirely.
I'll just stick with Internet.
"

It was liberating.
It felt good.
They completely missed the point they were just about to lose out on 60\% of their revenue stream with me.
Now I'm on high-speed Internet for slightly less than $40 after tax for two years...and won't have to call them on the phone and wait in their stupid queue.
That and I'm playing the Hulu, Netflix, and other source for content game from my PC and even streaming it to my living room TV in high quality and not missing the Cable Pig.
Haven't yet figured out how to easily get to Discovery Channel, HBO, and Showtime...but working on it.
;)

If a 40-something figures this out.....the cable industry should be seriously worried!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008290</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Smidge204</author>
	<datestamp>1257539040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.  If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.  It's quite simple.</p></div><p>This ignores the possibility that piracy exists in a market vacuum left by a bad business model.</p><p>It's true that there will always be some people who prefer to leech, but how much of the pirating is done because the market is improperly or under served?</p><p>Maybe it's not <b>just</b> about quality or price, but also convenience and availability.<br>=Smidge=</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simple.This ignores the possibility that piracy exists in a market vacuum left by a bad business model.It 's true that there will always be some people who prefer to leech , but how much of the pirating is done because the market is improperly or under served ? Maybe it 's not just about quality or price , but also convenience and availability. = Smidge =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simple.This ignores the possibility that piracy exists in a market vacuum left by a bad business model.It's true that there will always be some people who prefer to leech, but how much of the pirating is done because the market is improperly or under served?Maybe it's not just about quality or price, but also convenience and availability.=Smidge=
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011722</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257516720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot". Something darker and edgy.</p></div></blockquote><p>"The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan's Island"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping for a Gilligan 's Island " reboot " .
Something darker and edgy .
" The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan 's Island " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot".
Something darker and edgy.
"The Seven Deadly Sins of Gilligan's Island"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30016448</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>prometx42</author>
	<datestamp>1257585180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solid business acumen, or wildly inappropriate, juvenile dementia? It is sometimes hard to tell with telecom executives.</p><p>
***
</p><p>"Should I fashion my company's products to serve the deserving customer, who has allowed us our current level of success (including my own egregious salary), or painfully bend their very minds to my will and ruefully punish those who do not fall immediately into line?"</p><p> -- excerpt, The Dark Lord of The Sith School of Business: Markets 101</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solid business acumen , or wildly inappropriate , juvenile dementia ?
It is sometimes hard to tell with telecom executives .
* * * " Should I fashion my company 's products to serve the deserving customer , who has allowed us our current level of success ( including my own egregious salary ) , or painfully bend their very minds to my will and ruefully punish those who do not fall immediately into line ?
" -- excerpt , The Dark Lord of The Sith School of Business : Markets 101</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solid business acumen, or wildly inappropriate, juvenile dementia?
It is sometimes hard to tell with telecom executives.
***
"Should I fashion my company's products to serve the deserving customer, who has allowed us our current level of success (including my own egregious salary), or painfully bend their very minds to my will and ruefully punish those who do not fall immediately into line?
" -- excerpt, The Dark Lord of The Sith School of Business: Markets 101</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008390</id>
	<title>only way</title>
	<author>Jeek Elemental</author>
	<datestamp>1257539400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres only one way theyre gonna pull this off, get Mr. T to rap about copyright.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres only one way theyre gon na pull this off , get Mr. T to rap about copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres only one way theyre gonna pull this off, get Mr. T to rap about copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010690</id>
	<title>In another story..</title>
	<author>Roskolnikov</author>
	<datestamp>1257507060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consumers state that they would pick another cable company rather than demands, if there were another cable company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consumers state that they would pick another cable company rather than demands , if there were another cable company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consumers state that they would pick another cable company rather than demands, if there were another cable company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008830</id>
	<title>You're doomed before you start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257498120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the father of 3 boys and the pet of 1 cat, I realize that any solution to a problem that starts with or includes the words "make them do" or some variant thereof, is inherently flawed.  These people have a wrong worldview.  Why doesn't this surprise me?<br>How about, instead, the wording "they have a need/want; how do we meet it and still get what we need/want?" should figure heavily in the solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the father of 3 boys and the pet of 1 cat , I realize that any solution to a problem that starts with or includes the words " make them do " or some variant thereof , is inherently flawed .
These people have a wrong worldview .
Why does n't this surprise me ? How about , instead , the wording " they have a need/want ; how do we meet it and still get what we need/want ?
" should figure heavily in the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the father of 3 boys and the pet of 1 cat, I realize that any solution to a problem that starts with or includes the words "make them do" or some variant thereof, is inherently flawed.
These people have a wrong worldview.
Why doesn't this surprise me?How about, instead, the wording "they have a need/want; how do we meet it and still get what we need/want?
" should figure heavily in the solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009248</id>
	<title>This makes me want to pirate stuff more.</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1257499920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that?  You want me to respect copyright?  Why?  Because it funnels money from my wallet into yours?</p><p>This executive has earned himself one unforgettable beating with a 2-by-4, to be held in the back alley as soon as someone gets the balls to actually go and give it to him.</p><p>We need to beat some sense into people like this.  Literally.</p><p>If you feel like you need to change consumer behavior to fit your business model, then you aren't delivering something that consumers actually want (or want to pay for from you), and you deserve to fail as a business.  Give 'em what they want, because that's what they will most likely be willing to pay for.</p><p>And to solve the piracy problem: Stop releasing stuff in forms that can be easily pirated.  Stop releasing DVD box sets, stop releasing individual episodes on iTunes, and stop letting the media slip out of your control.  Heck, that way, you save the entire production cost of the DVDs or whatever you need to give Apple to get into the iTunes store.  The solution to shark attacks is not to cover up all open wounds and be blood-free and stuff.  The solution is to stay out of the water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that ?
You want me to respect copyright ?
Why ? Because it funnels money from my wallet into yours ? This executive has earned himself one unforgettable beating with a 2-by-4 , to be held in the back alley as soon as someone gets the balls to actually go and give it to him.We need to beat some sense into people like this .
Literally.If you feel like you need to change consumer behavior to fit your business model , then you are n't delivering something that consumers actually want ( or want to pay for from you ) , and you deserve to fail as a business .
Give 'em what they want , because that 's what they will most likely be willing to pay for.And to solve the piracy problem : Stop releasing stuff in forms that can be easily pirated .
Stop releasing DVD box sets , stop releasing individual episodes on iTunes , and stop letting the media slip out of your control .
Heck , that way , you save the entire production cost of the DVDs or whatever you need to give Apple to get into the iTunes store .
The solution to shark attacks is not to cover up all open wounds and be blood-free and stuff .
The solution is to stay out of the water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that?
You want me to respect copyright?
Why?  Because it funnels money from my wallet into yours?This executive has earned himself one unforgettable beating with a 2-by-4, to be held in the back alley as soon as someone gets the balls to actually go and give it to him.We need to beat some sense into people like this.
Literally.If you feel like you need to change consumer behavior to fit your business model, then you aren't delivering something that consumers actually want (or want to pay for from you), and you deserve to fail as a business.
Give 'em what they want, because that's what they will most likely be willing to pay for.And to solve the piracy problem: Stop releasing stuff in forms that can be easily pirated.
Stop releasing DVD box sets, stop releasing individual episodes on iTunes, and stop letting the media slip out of your control.
Heck, that way, you save the entire production cost of the DVDs or whatever you need to give Apple to get into the iTunes store.
The solution to shark attacks is not to cover up all open wounds and be blood-free and stuff.
The solution is to stay out of the water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009984</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257503100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Entitlement goes both ways. The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its *distribution cost* and *replication cost* is $0. The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero, but it was always amortized into the distribution cost.</p> </div><p>You mean like <em>Blair Witch</em> or, more recently, <em>Paranormal Activity</em>? The latter cost US$ 15,000 to make and so far has grossed US$ 89M.</p><p>Creation cost is certainly non-zero, but it doesn't have to be $100M.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entitlement goes both ways .
The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its * distribution cost * and * replication cost * is $ 0 .
The creation cost for the content has always been , and will always be , non-zero , but it was always amortized into the distribution cost .
You mean like Blair Witch or , more recently , Paranormal Activity ?
The latter cost US $ 15,000 to make and so far has grossed US $ 89M.Creation cost is certainly non-zero , but it does n't have to be $ 100M .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entitlement goes both ways.
The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its *distribution cost* and *replication cost* is $0.
The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero, but it was always amortized into the distribution cost.
You mean like Blair Witch or, more recently, Paranormal Activity?
The latter cost US$ 15,000 to make and so far has grossed US$ 89M.Creation cost is certainly non-zero, but it doesn't have to be $100M.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010444</id>
	<title>Re:It's way too late for change</title>
	<author>Ifandbut</author>
	<datestamp>1257505440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea to me now, of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour, sitting through all those ads, actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion. I cannot imagine doing it anymore, and I don't.</p></div><p>DVR FTW</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea to me now , of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour , sitting through all those ads , actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule ; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion .
I can not imagine doing it anymore , and I do n't.DVR FTW</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea to me now, of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour, sitting through all those ads, actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion.
I cannot imagine doing it anymore, and I don't.DVR FTW
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008510</id>
	<title>Fixed that for him...</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1257540120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams?</p></div></blockquote><p>&quot;An entire corporate business model is not evolving, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects rights and budgets on the part of consumers, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting. Home many corporations, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' consumers?&quot;</p><p>There fixed that for him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An entire generation is growing up , if we do n't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors , we 're going to wake up and see cord cutting .
' How many consumers , in any market , are focused on 'respecting ' vendors ' revenue streams ?
" An entire corporate business model is not evolving , if we do n't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects rights and budgets on the part of consumers , we 're going to wake up and see cord cutting .
Home many corporations , in any market , are focused on 'respecting ' consumers ?
" There fixed that for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.
' How many consumers, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' vendors' revenue streams?
"An entire corporate business model is not evolving, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects rights and budgets on the part of consumers, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.
Home many corporations, in any market, are focused on 'respecting' consumers?
"There fixed that for him.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011954</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257519780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>iTunes will only sell you MP3s and all their video offerings are DRMed.</i></p><p>You don't know what you're talking about.  Apple sells files in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITunes#File\_format\_support" title="wikipedia.org">MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC and Apple Lossless</a> [wikipedia.org] formats. iTunes also sells DRMless downloads, "At the 2009 Macworld Conference &amp; Expo, it was announced that the iTunes Music Store would be DRM-free, with conversion complete by April 2009."</p><p>FUD</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes will only sell you MP3s and all their video offerings are DRMed.You do n't know what you 're talking about .
Apple sells files in MP3 , AIFF , WAV , MPEG-4 , AAC and Apple Lossless [ wikipedia.org ] formats .
iTunes also sells DRMless downloads , " At the 2009 Macworld Conference &amp; Expo , it was announced that the iTunes Music Store would be DRM-free , with conversion complete by April 2009 .
" FUD Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes will only sell you MP3s and all their video offerings are DRMed.You don't know what you're talking about.
Apple sells files in MP3, AIFF, WAV, MPEG-4, AAC and Apple Lossless [wikipedia.org] formats.
iTunes also sells DRMless downloads, "At the 2009 Macworld Conference &amp; Expo, it was announced that the iTunes Music Store would be DRM-free, with conversion complete by April 2009.
"FUD

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010194</id>
	<title>Re:Just release TV shows for free</title>
	<author>spaceboy33</author>
	<datestamp>1257504120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And make your money on touring.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Mighty\_Boosh\_(2006\_stage\_show)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">It</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little\_Britain\_Live" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">happens</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And make your money on touring.It [ wikipedia.org ] happens [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And make your money on touring.It [wikipedia.org] happens [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009414</id>
	<title>Re:"products that consumers will willingly pay for</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1257500640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copyright mostly exists merely because of government corruption (Mickey Mouse protection act, etc). The public domain was stolen from the public. That's why I see no reason to obey it. Breaking the law isn't and cannot be morally wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright mostly exists merely because of government corruption ( Mickey Mouse protection act , etc ) .
The public domain was stolen from the public .
That 's why I see no reason to obey it .
Breaking the law is n't and can not be morally wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright mostly exists merely because of government corruption (Mickey Mouse protection act, etc).
The public domain was stolen from the public.
That's why I see no reason to obey it.
Breaking the law isn't and cannot be morally wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009150</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1257499500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that they're not just talking about TPB or Napster.  They are also upset about Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.</p><p>I think everyone wants something like Hulu but less encumbered by flash (360i video shouldn't require a multi-ghz, multiple core machine.  It shouldn't even be done on the CPU at all)  that has *everything* available for a reasonable fee.  And I want to pay for the content license separately from the bandwidth license.  There's no reason why HD movies should cost three times as much as their SD versions.</p><p>But that's the service that really eats into their revenue models.  Not the whiny brats file sharing.  They are justified in objecting to the file-sharers, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that they 're not just talking about TPB or Napster .
They are also upset about Netflix , Amazon , Hulu , etc.I think everyone wants something like Hulu but less encumbered by flash ( 360i video should n't require a multi-ghz , multiple core machine .
It should n't even be done on the CPU at all ) that has * everything * available for a reasonable fee .
And I want to pay for the content license separately from the bandwidth license .
There 's no reason why HD movies should cost three times as much as their SD versions.But that 's the service that really eats into their revenue models .
Not the whiny brats file sharing .
They are justified in objecting to the file-sharers , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that they're not just talking about TPB or Napster.
They are also upset about Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc.I think everyone wants something like Hulu but less encumbered by flash (360i video shouldn't require a multi-ghz, multiple core machine.
It shouldn't even be done on the CPU at all)  that has *everything* available for a reasonable fee.
And I want to pay for the content license separately from the bandwidth license.
There's no reason why HD movies should cost three times as much as their SD versions.But that's the service that really eats into their revenue models.
Not the whiny brats file sharing.
They are justified in objecting to the file-sharers, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008420</id>
	<title>How about this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a netflix and cable subscription, you've already paid for nearly everything pirate-able; in most cases twice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a netflix and cable subscription , you 've already paid for nearly everything pirate-able ; in most cases twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a netflix and cable subscription, you've already paid for nearly everything pirate-able; in most cases twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008170</id>
	<title>Re:Might I be the first</title>
	<author>Captain Centropyge</author>
	<datestamp>1257538500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's great!  But, your solution won't necessarily work for the general, non-tech-savvy public, though.  But you could always start a business to get people up and running, and provide tech services when they need them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great !
But , your solution wo n't necessarily work for the general , non-tech-savvy public , though .
But you could always start a business to get people up and running , and provide tech services when they need them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great!
But, your solution won't necessarily work for the general, non-tech-savvy public, though.
But you could always start a business to get people up and running, and provide tech services when they need them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008458</id>
	<title>Because it seems easier.</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1257539820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To market and change buying preferences than to actually do some work and figure out what is really needed to compete.It is also cheaper and easier to buy congressmen and senators, oops, I meant to say hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions, to pass restrictive legislation than to retool a company.</p><p>If he works too much he might not have time for his golf game.</p><p>But I think the effort is doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To market and change buying preferences than to actually do some work and figure out what is really needed to compete.It is also cheaper and easier to buy congressmen and senators , oops , I meant to say hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions , to pass restrictive legislation than to retool a company.If he works too much he might not have time for his golf game.But I think the effort is doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To market and change buying preferences than to actually do some work and figure out what is really needed to compete.It is also cheaper and easier to buy congressmen and senators, oops, I meant to say hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions, to pass restrictive legislation than to retool a company.If he works too much he might not have time for his golf game.But I think the effort is doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009516</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257501060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What?  Music and other content has always been free.  I'm singing right now and I'm damn well not going to pay the song writer.  You can complain all you want, but for all of human history, that's how it worked.  Only since the player piano, less than 200 years ago, has your draconian view of content ownership even existed.  As a human, I'm entitled to enjoy my culture with out a bunch of strings and lawyers attached.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Music and other content has always been free .
I 'm singing right now and I 'm damn well not going to pay the song writer .
You can complain all you want , but for all of human history , that 's how it worked .
Only since the player piano , less than 200 years ago , has your draconian view of content ownership even existed .
As a human , I 'm entitled to enjoy my culture with out a bunch of strings and lawyers attached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Music and other content has always been free.
I'm singing right now and I'm damn well not going to pay the song writer.
You can complain all you want, but for all of human history, that's how it worked.
Only since the player piano, less than 200 years ago, has your draconian view of content ownership even existed.
As a human, I'm entitled to enjoy my culture with out a bunch of strings and lawyers attached.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008286</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no real ethical imperative to pay for it either though. There's a cultural belief in one is many cases - but these things change all the time (e.g. sex before marriage and divorce being massively more acceptable now than years past).</p><p>When it comes right down to it, intellectual property rights (property rights in general actually) don't even come close to having as strong as ethical ground as something like murder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no real ethical imperative to pay for it either though .
There 's a cultural belief in one is many cases - but these things change all the time ( e.g .
sex before marriage and divorce being massively more acceptable now than years past ) .When it comes right down to it , intellectual property rights ( property rights in general actually ) do n't even come close to having as strong as ethical ground as something like murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no real ethical imperative to pay for it either though.
There's a cultural belief in one is many cases - but these things change all the time (e.g.
sex before marriage and divorce being massively more acceptable now than years past).When it comes right down to it, intellectual property rights (property rights in general actually) don't even come close to having as strong as ethical ground as something like murder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008194</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it. If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it. It's quite simple</i></p><p>What about me wishing to simply send high definition video and 7.1 audio to the display of my choice without having to purchase 'special' hardware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simpleWhat about me wishing to simply send high definition video and 7.1 audio to the display of my choice without having to purchase 'special ' hardware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simpleWhat about me wishing to simply send high definition video and 7.1 audio to the display of my choice without having to purchase 'special' hardware?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010088</id>
	<title>Ask a child</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257503520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever my two year old watches a show to end he has only one thing to say:</p><p>'One more time'<br>It's pretty obvious that any customer that has grown up can only demand <i>on demand</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever my two year old watches a show to end he has only one thing to say : 'One more time'It 's pretty obvious that any customer that has grown up can only demand on demand</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever my two year old watches a show to end he has only one thing to say:'One more time'It's pretty obvious that any customer that has grown up can only demand on demand</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008180</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1257538500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there still a problem?</p></div><p>Depends... how attached are you to really crappy episodes of <i>Heroes</i>?  Or *shudder* <i>Survivor LXIV</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there still a problem ? Depends... how attached are you to really crappy episodes of Heroes ?
Or * shudder * Survivor LXIV ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there still a problem?Depends... how attached are you to really crappy episodes of Heroes?
Or *shudder* Survivor LXIV?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011270</id>
	<title>no morality or ethics around copyright</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1257511680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright is about legal technicalities and competing economic interests. There is nothing "moral" or "ethical" about the issue, full stop.</p><p>There is no "natural right" to a monopoly on reproduction of a creative work the way that there's a "natural" right to freedom of speech or something.</p><p>As Jefferson said, (sorry if I mangle the quote) "he who lights his taper at my candle enriches himself while taking nothing from me."</p><p>If you wanna talk about ethics around IP, the only questions that make sense to be framed as "ethical" are all on the side of the anti-copyright zealots. Things like "is it ethical for person A to restrict person B's freedom of speech" or "is it ethical to prohibit people from accessing life-saving drugs unless they give me money first?"</p><p>Those who wanna argue in favor of the status quo on copyright seem to be unable to come up with anything like a rational argument, so they've resorted to emotional appeals and attempts to make people feel guilty. But it's just not a moral or ethical issue, it's just a question of competing economic interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is about legal technicalities and competing economic interests .
There is nothing " moral " or " ethical " about the issue , full stop.There is no " natural right " to a monopoly on reproduction of a creative work the way that there 's a " natural " right to freedom of speech or something.As Jefferson said , ( sorry if I mangle the quote ) " he who lights his taper at my candle enriches himself while taking nothing from me .
" If you wan na talk about ethics around IP , the only questions that make sense to be framed as " ethical " are all on the side of the anti-copyright zealots .
Things like " is it ethical for person A to restrict person B 's freedom of speech " or " is it ethical to prohibit people from accessing life-saving drugs unless they give me money first ?
" Those who wan na argue in favor of the status quo on copyright seem to be unable to come up with anything like a rational argument , so they 've resorted to emotional appeals and attempts to make people feel guilty .
But it 's just not a moral or ethical issue , it 's just a question of competing economic interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright is about legal technicalities and competing economic interests.
There is nothing "moral" or "ethical" about the issue, full stop.There is no "natural right" to a monopoly on reproduction of a creative work the way that there's a "natural" right to freedom of speech or something.As Jefferson said, (sorry if I mangle the quote) "he who lights his taper at my candle enriches himself while taking nothing from me.
"If you wanna talk about ethics around IP, the only questions that make sense to be framed as "ethical" are all on the side of the anti-copyright zealots.
Things like "is it ethical for person A to restrict person B's freedom of speech" or "is it ethical to prohibit people from accessing life-saving drugs unless they give me money first?
"Those who wanna argue in favor of the status quo on copyright seem to be unable to come up with anything like a rational argument, so they've resorted to emotional appeals and attempts to make people feel guilty.
But it's just not a moral or ethical issue, it's just a question of competing economic interests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008870</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not do some A-La-Cart, or bakery style pricing?  I don't want to pay $70 a month for 200 channels that I will never watch. I would be willing to maybe pay 10-20 for the few that I would.  So if you break that down, you make more per channel with the A-La-Cart style, rather than bundle only.<br>If the Cable Company pays each channel 5cents for their distribution right, and they are charging $70 for 200 channels, their gross profit is $60, or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.30cents per channel.  But if you pay $20 for say 10 shows, that is a gross profit of 1.95 per channel!  Or even better, the more shows, you add, the cheaper each becomes.  So you could 5 shows at $10/month, or 10shows at $18/month...etc.  Some type of tiered pricing that allows those of us that do not want to pay tons for something they wont ever completely use.  it allows penetration into homes that don't have 70/month to spend, but do have 10-20.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not do some A-La-Cart , or bakery style pricing ?
I do n't want to pay $ 70 a month for 200 channels that I will never watch .
I would be willing to maybe pay 10-20 for the few that I would .
So if you break that down , you make more per channel with the A-La-Cart style , rather than bundle only.If the Cable Company pays each channel 5cents for their distribution right , and they are charging $ 70 for 200 channels , their gross profit is $ 60 , or .30cents per channel .
But if you pay $ 20 for say 10 shows , that is a gross profit of 1.95 per channel !
Or even better , the more shows , you add , the cheaper each becomes .
So you could 5 shows at $ 10/month , or 10shows at $ 18/month...etc .
Some type of tiered pricing that allows those of us that do not want to pay tons for something they wont ever completely use .
it allows penetration into homes that do n't have 70/month to spend , but do have 10-20 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not do some A-La-Cart, or bakery style pricing?
I don't want to pay $70 a month for 200 channels that I will never watch.
I would be willing to maybe pay 10-20 for the few that I would.
So if you break that down, you make more per channel with the A-La-Cart style, rather than bundle only.If the Cable Company pays each channel 5cents for their distribution right, and they are charging $70 for 200 channels, their gross profit is $60, or .30cents per channel.
But if you pay $20 for say 10 shows, that is a gross profit of 1.95 per channel!
Or even better, the more shows, you add, the cheaper each becomes.
So you could 5 shows at $10/month, or 10shows at $18/month...etc.
Some type of tiered pricing that allows those of us that do not want to pay tons for something they wont ever completely use.
it allows penetration into homes that don't have 70/month to spend, but do have 10-20.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012176</id>
	<title>A better way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257523800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An open letter to anyone who cares:</p><p>I have been a cable subscriber for most of my 37 years. When my son was born four years ago, we ditched the cable "bundle" because we couldn't afford it. Well.. that was the primary reason anyway. The honest truth is that I got pretty sick of the content, and with a little one tugging at my pantleg, suddenly controlling content became a lot more important to me.</p><p>I am also an unapologetic nerd. I have four computers running on my home network, three of which I built with my own hands. One of those machines is an internet-connected home theater PC. At last count, there's about 70 movies and something like 300 CD's ripped and stored to the HTPC along with pictures and home movies. I'm approaching something like 400Gb of hand-selected content. Most of my collection is simply movies and CD's in disc form that I ripped and stored to the HTPC because three year olds do not understand that discs do not work better with ketchup. I've also gotten a netflix account since I learned that you can have them stream movies to your computer.</p><p>And, this past year saw the purchase of the MLB.tv season package. I got to watch any baseball game I choose any time for a flat fee of $100/year. In HD. I am in the process of liberating myself completely from the 'bundle" trap and I love it.</p><p>I am not saying that cable should just die quietly. I am arguing that it is only a matter of time before people get smart enough to realize that through their purchasing decisions, they can force change. I would love to have a web interface, for instance, that would allow me to buy only the channels I want to watch on a monthly basis.. channel by channel. It would mean a lower cable bill for me.. probably more people signing up for the cable companies.. plenty of content control for the parents among us and the freedom to catch your favorite show from a computer if you choose to do so. And.. best of all.. no more complaining about "there's nothing on". If you can't find anything on TV that you want to watch.. it's your fault! In an economy like ours, it would be a great benefit to me to be able to turn channels on and off as finances dictate.</p><p>Cable would be charging less, but they'd make it up in volume. Customers like me who have long since "cut the cord" would come back for only the content that interested them. There's another great revenue stream here, too.. cable could keep track of the channels that I buy and sell that data back to the content providers.. thereby providing feedback on what's popular and what isn't. Just think of the targeted advertising possibilities..</p><p>I am prepared for such a future, and I await the action of some bold and visionary exec at a cable company somewhere to take action.. grab this new and exciting model and move it forward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An open letter to anyone who cares : I have been a cable subscriber for most of my 37 years .
When my son was born four years ago , we ditched the cable " bundle " because we could n't afford it .
Well.. that was the primary reason anyway .
The honest truth is that I got pretty sick of the content , and with a little one tugging at my pantleg , suddenly controlling content became a lot more important to me.I am also an unapologetic nerd .
I have four computers running on my home network , three of which I built with my own hands .
One of those machines is an internet-connected home theater PC .
At last count , there 's about 70 movies and something like 300 CD 's ripped and stored to the HTPC along with pictures and home movies .
I 'm approaching something like 400Gb of hand-selected content .
Most of my collection is simply movies and CD 's in disc form that I ripped and stored to the HTPC because three year olds do not understand that discs do not work better with ketchup .
I 've also gotten a netflix account since I learned that you can have them stream movies to your computer.And , this past year saw the purchase of the MLB.tv season package .
I got to watch any baseball game I choose any time for a flat fee of $ 100/year .
In HD .
I am in the process of liberating myself completely from the 'bundle " trap and I love it.I am not saying that cable should just die quietly .
I am arguing that it is only a matter of time before people get smart enough to realize that through their purchasing decisions , they can force change .
I would love to have a web interface , for instance , that would allow me to buy only the channels I want to watch on a monthly basis.. channel by channel .
It would mean a lower cable bill for me.. probably more people signing up for the cable companies.. plenty of content control for the parents among us and the freedom to catch your favorite show from a computer if you choose to do so .
And.. best of all.. no more complaining about " there 's nothing on " .
If you ca n't find anything on TV that you want to watch.. it 's your fault !
In an economy like ours , it would be a great benefit to me to be able to turn channels on and off as finances dictate.Cable would be charging less , but they 'd make it up in volume .
Customers like me who have long since " cut the cord " would come back for only the content that interested them .
There 's another great revenue stream here , too.. cable could keep track of the channels that I buy and sell that data back to the content providers.. thereby providing feedback on what 's popular and what is n't .
Just think of the targeted advertising possibilities..I am prepared for such a future , and I await the action of some bold and visionary exec at a cable company somewhere to take action.. grab this new and exciting model and move it forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An open letter to anyone who cares:I have been a cable subscriber for most of my 37 years.
When my son was born four years ago, we ditched the cable "bundle" because we couldn't afford it.
Well.. that was the primary reason anyway.
The honest truth is that I got pretty sick of the content, and with a little one tugging at my pantleg, suddenly controlling content became a lot more important to me.I am also an unapologetic nerd.
I have four computers running on my home network, three of which I built with my own hands.
One of those machines is an internet-connected home theater PC.
At last count, there's about 70 movies and something like 300 CD's ripped and stored to the HTPC along with pictures and home movies.
I'm approaching something like 400Gb of hand-selected content.
Most of my collection is simply movies and CD's in disc form that I ripped and stored to the HTPC because three year olds do not understand that discs do not work better with ketchup.
I've also gotten a netflix account since I learned that you can have them stream movies to your computer.And, this past year saw the purchase of the MLB.tv season package.
I got to watch any baseball game I choose any time for a flat fee of $100/year.
In HD.
I am in the process of liberating myself completely from the 'bundle" trap and I love it.I am not saying that cable should just die quietly.
I am arguing that it is only a matter of time before people get smart enough to realize that through their purchasing decisions, they can force change.
I would love to have a web interface, for instance, that would allow me to buy only the channels I want to watch on a monthly basis.. channel by channel.
It would mean a lower cable bill for me.. probably more people signing up for the cable companies.. plenty of content control for the parents among us and the freedom to catch your favorite show from a computer if you choose to do so.
And.. best of all.. no more complaining about "there's nothing on".
If you can't find anything on TV that you want to watch.. it's your fault!
In an economy like ours, it would be a great benefit to me to be able to turn channels on and off as finances dictate.Cable would be charging less, but they'd make it up in volume.
Customers like me who have long since "cut the cord" would come back for only the content that interested them.
There's another great revenue stream here, too.. cable could keep track of the channels that I buy and sell that data back to the content providers.. thereby providing feedback on what's popular and what isn't.
Just think of the targeted advertising possibilities..I am prepared for such a future, and I await the action of some bold and visionary exec at a cable company somewhere to take action.. grab this new and exciting model and move it forward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009618</id>
	<title>We've heard this one before. Elect a new people?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1257501540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>The Solution</b></p><p>After the uprising of the 17th June<br>The Secretary of the Writers Union<br>Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee<br>Stating that the people<br>Had forfeited the confidence of the government<br>And could win it back only<br>By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier<br>In that case for the government<br>To dissolve the people<br>And elect another?</p><p><i>-- Bertolt Brecht</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SolutionAfter the uprising of the 17th JuneThe Secretary of the Writers UnionHad leaflets distributed in the StalinalleeStating that the peopleHad forfeited the confidence of the governmentAnd could win it back onlyBy redoubled efforts .
Would it not be easierIn that case for the governmentTo dissolve the peopleAnd elect another ? -- Bertolt Brecht</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SolutionAfter the uprising of the 17th JuneThe Secretary of the Writers UnionHad leaflets distributed in the StalinalleeStating that the peopleHad forfeited the confidence of the governmentAnd could win it back onlyBy redoubled efforts.
Would it not be easierIn that case for the governmentTo dissolve the peopleAnd elect another?-- Bertolt Brecht</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008720</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257540900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article (and the article it in turn links to) aren't particularly well written, but it doesn't look like the guy is particularly worried about copyright infringement or p2p.  What is keeping him up at night is Hulu - NBC and Disney distribute their content directly to the consumer (for free) without any revenue going to the cable companies.</p><p>It seems this guy has probably tied his career to something called the "TV Everywhere" initiative.  This is apparently an online video service, like Hulu, but run by cable companies; it would require proof that you subscribe to cable.  That's what he means by "respecting our revenue streams"; why would a consumer pay for cable if they can get the same content (legitimately) for free directly from the studios?  They'll still have their internet business, but they'll be in direct competition with the phone companies, wireless, etc. without the ability to leverage their television service.</p><p>My guess is he is going to have a short career.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article ( and the article it in turn links to ) are n't particularly well written , but it does n't look like the guy is particularly worried about copyright infringement or p2p .
What is keeping him up at night is Hulu - NBC and Disney distribute their content directly to the consumer ( for free ) without any revenue going to the cable companies.It seems this guy has probably tied his career to something called the " TV Everywhere " initiative .
This is apparently an online video service , like Hulu , but run by cable companies ; it would require proof that you subscribe to cable .
That 's what he means by " respecting our revenue streams " ; why would a consumer pay for cable if they can get the same content ( legitimately ) for free directly from the studios ?
They 'll still have their internet business , but they 'll be in direct competition with the phone companies , wireless , etc .
without the ability to leverage their television service.My guess is he is going to have a short career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article (and the article it in turn links to) aren't particularly well written, but it doesn't look like the guy is particularly worried about copyright infringement or p2p.
What is keeping him up at night is Hulu - NBC and Disney distribute their content directly to the consumer (for free) without any revenue going to the cable companies.It seems this guy has probably tied his career to something called the "TV Everywhere" initiative.
This is apparently an online video service, like Hulu, but run by cable companies; it would require proof that you subscribe to cable.
That's what he means by "respecting our revenue streams"; why would a consumer pay for cable if they can get the same content (legitimately) for free directly from the studios?
They'll still have their internet business, but they'll be in direct competition with the phone companies, wireless, etc.
without the ability to leverage their television service.My guess is he is going to have a short career.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008214</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>CapnStank</author>
	<datestamp>1257538680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately your argument holds as little ground as the ones you shunned in your post.
<br> <br>
The fact of the matter is if:<br>
A) No sales are lost because of pirating (disputable) <br>
and B) Nothing is being destroyed<br> <br>

Then why is it unethical? Digital reproduction isn't killing babies <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5486510n&amp;tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">(despite what 60 minutes will have you believe)</a> [cbsnews.com] <br> <br>
Now I agree with you. While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical' or 'not hurting anyone'. Our job, as the citizens of a country, is to have it changed through legal matters. Consult your local representative and let them know your position. This online 'revolution' is just digging a hole.<br> <br>
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated. They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work. This inspired people to create original content and not copy others. Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately your argument holds as little ground as the ones you shunned in your post .
The fact of the matter is if : A ) No sales are lost because of pirating ( disputable ) and B ) Nothing is being destroyed Then why is it unethical ?
Digital reproduction is n't killing babies ( despite what 60 minutes will have you believe ) [ cbsnews.com ] Now I agree with you .
While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical ' or 'not hurting anyone' .
Our job , as the citizens of a country , is to have it changed through legal matters .
Consult your local representative and let them know your position .
This online 'revolution ' is just digging a hole .
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated .
They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one 's work .
This inspired people to create original content and not copy others .
Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately your argument holds as little ground as the ones you shunned in your post.
The fact of the matter is if:
A) No sales are lost because of pirating (disputable) 
and B) Nothing is being destroyed 

Then why is it unethical?
Digital reproduction isn't killing babies (despite what 60 minutes will have you believe) [cbsnews.com]  
Now I agree with you.
While something is still illegal we are not to break that law citing that it is 'ethical' or 'not hurting anyone'.
Our job, as the citizens of a country, is to have it changed through legal matters.
Consult your local representative and let them know your position.
This online 'revolution' is just digging a hole.
I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated.
They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work.
This inspired people to create original content and not copy others.
Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011052</id>
	<title>Re:Just release TV shows for free</title>
	<author>phoenix\_rizzen</author>
	<datestamp>1257509760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, release the pilot (or pilot and a couple episodes) for free, and offer the rest of the season for $0.50 an episode.  Put a simple "This episode sponsored by BigCompanyX" at the beginning of the show, and run it without commercials.  Good shows would quickly become self-supporting.  Bad shows would be dropped due to lack of funding.  And people could watch what they want, when they want.</p><p>Video-on-demand is where it is at.  But it's still too cumbersome and expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , release the pilot ( or pilot and a couple episodes ) for free , and offer the rest of the season for $ 0.50 an episode .
Put a simple " This episode sponsored by BigCompanyX " at the beginning of the show , and run it without commercials .
Good shows would quickly become self-supporting .
Bad shows would be dropped due to lack of funding .
And people could watch what they want , when they want.Video-on-demand is where it is at .
But it 's still too cumbersome and expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, release the pilot (or pilot and a couple episodes) for free, and offer the rest of the season for $0.50 an episode.
Put a simple "This episode sponsored by BigCompanyX" at the beginning of the show, and run it without commercials.
Good shows would quickly become self-supporting.
Bad shows would be dropped due to lack of funding.
And people could watch what they want, when they want.Video-on-demand is where it is at.
But it's still too cumbersome and expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008238</id>
	<title>Re:Might I be the first</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1257538800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely. They missed the boat by 5-10 years. Had they started offering convenient digital services instead of stubbornly trying to protect their existing, entrenched businesses, they probably could have transitioned people into a new business model back when everybody was still used to paying through the nose for content. But no, that would require work, and vision, and why would you do that when you're making money hand over fist and the good times will never end?
<br>
<br>So yeah, just another industry that failed to adapt to change when they had the opportunity. Well, you missed it buddy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
They missed the boat by 5-10 years .
Had they started offering convenient digital services instead of stubbornly trying to protect their existing , entrenched businesses , they probably could have transitioned people into a new business model back when everybody was still used to paying through the nose for content .
But no , that would require work , and vision , and why would you do that when you 're making money hand over fist and the good times will never end ?
So yeah , just another industry that failed to adapt to change when they had the opportunity .
Well , you missed it buddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
They missed the boat by 5-10 years.
Had they started offering convenient digital services instead of stubbornly trying to protect their existing, entrenched businesses, they probably could have transitioned people into a new business model back when everybody was still used to paying through the nose for content.
But no, that would require work, and vision, and why would you do that when you're making money hand over fist and the good times will never end?
So yeah, just another industry that failed to adapt to change when they had the opportunity.
Well, you missed it buddy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010612</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257506580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The content industry hankers for the golden age of the 1950's when it was not possible (essentially) to copy media yes you could do phonograph records on a reel to reel tape machine but they were expensive. Movies just flat were seen in theaters and for old ones on TV. The content providers had it good then. They view the world thru that lens and regard technical progress as a negative e.g. the writeable cd, the writeable dvd, and for the theater industry the whole DVD thing in general since people don't go to theaters any more. Clearly all these need to be outlawed to get back to the good old days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The content industry hankers for the golden age of the 1950 's when it was not possible ( essentially ) to copy media yes you could do phonograph records on a reel to reel tape machine but they were expensive .
Movies just flat were seen in theaters and for old ones on TV .
The content providers had it good then .
They view the world thru that lens and regard technical progress as a negative e.g .
the writeable cd , the writeable dvd , and for the theater industry the whole DVD thing in general since people do n't go to theaters any more .
Clearly all these need to be outlawed to get back to the good old days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The content industry hankers for the golden age of the 1950's when it was not possible (essentially) to copy media yes you could do phonograph records on a reel to reel tape machine but they were expensive.
Movies just flat were seen in theaters and for old ones on TV.
The content providers had it good then.
They view the world thru that lens and regard technical progress as a negative e.g.
the writeable cd, the writeable dvd, and for the theater industry the whole DVD thing in general since people don't go to theaters any more.
Clearly all these need to be outlawed to get back to the good old days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008300</id>
	<title>What about a gossip excuse?</title>
	<author>mujadaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1257539100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.</p></div><p>&ldquo;Information on the Internet is subject to the same rules and regulations as conversation at a bar.&rdquo; ~  George Lundberg</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it.    Information on the Internet is subject to the same rules and regulations as conversation at a bar.    ~ George Lundberg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.“Information on the Internet is subject to the same rules and regulations as conversation at a bar.” ~  George Lundberg
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008088</id>
	<title>Times they are a changin'</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1257538140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care for commercials and I want to watch my programs at my convenience. That's really all that has changed.</p><p>Is it really that huge a leap for Cable Companies to figure out how to supply a video-on-demand only service?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care for commercials and I want to watch my programs at my convenience .
That 's really all that has changed.Is it really that huge a leap for Cable Companies to figure out how to supply a video-on-demand only service ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care for commercials and I want to watch my programs at my convenience.
That's really all that has changed.Is it really that huge a leap for Cable Companies to figure out how to supply a video-on-demand only service?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009464</id>
	<title>Class Warfare</title>
	<author>TheRealRainFall</author>
	<datestamp>1257500880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The consumer will start caring about the corporation when the corporation starts respecting the consumer. Right now the corporation will screw the consumer over to get every last dollar out of them and the consumer will try to get everything possible for free.  There will never be respect unless the war is ended.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The consumer will start caring about the corporation when the corporation starts respecting the consumer .
Right now the corporation will screw the consumer over to get every last dollar out of them and the consumer will try to get everything possible for free .
There will never be respect unless the war is ended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The consumer will start caring about the corporation when the corporation starts respecting the consumer.
Right now the corporation will screw the consumer over to get every last dollar out of them and the consumer will try to get everything possible for free.
There will never be respect unless the war is ended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008338</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257539280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.</p></div><p>That does not cover the entire scope of cases where a potential customer has acquired content that the industry has not approved.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.</p></div><p>See above.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it.That does not cover the entire scope of cases where a potential customer has acquired content that the industry has not approved.I now expect 4 dozen posts , making car analogies , expounding on the " false " argument of lost sales , and pointing out that I 'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.See above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.That does not cover the entire scope of cases where a potential customer has acquired content that the industry has not approved.I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.See above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008936</id>
	<title>Re:Times they are a changin'</title>
	<author>stupkid</author>
	<datestamp>1257498660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You remember that Apple patent for ads directly in the OS?  My guess is that this will be the shift.  You will not be able to filter them out as the OS will prevent you from doing so.</p><p>Just a wild ass paranoid guess, but that's where this is going I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You remember that Apple patent for ads directly in the OS ?
My guess is that this will be the shift .
You will not be able to filter them out as the OS will prevent you from doing so.Just a wild ass paranoid guess , but that 's where this is going I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You remember that Apple patent for ads directly in the OS?
My guess is that this will be the shift.
You will not be able to filter them out as the OS will prevent you from doing so.Just a wild ass paranoid guess, but that's where this is going I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008582</id>
	<title>Ok you change, No you change, hey can we...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257540360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would seem that both respecting copyrights and having products that you want to buy are a good thing.  So where is the contention.  Are you trying to get them to provide you with content that you want or are you scamming them as much as you think they are scamming you.   It has long been known that consumers want the best products for free.  The vendor wants to sell you the cheapest thing he can buy for as much as you can pay for it.  The business model hasn't changed there, how exactly do you expect them to change the scarcity/profit formula to suit your needs?  I'd really like to hear the people screaming about the bad business model to explain exactly how it should be changed, because I don't think they actually know what a business model is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem that both respecting copyrights and having products that you want to buy are a good thing .
So where is the contention .
Are you trying to get them to provide you with content that you want or are you scamming them as much as you think they are scamming you .
It has long been known that consumers want the best products for free .
The vendor wants to sell you the cheapest thing he can buy for as much as you can pay for it .
The business model has n't changed there , how exactly do you expect them to change the scarcity/profit formula to suit your needs ?
I 'd really like to hear the people screaming about the bad business model to explain exactly how it should be changed , because I do n't think they actually know what a business model is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem that both respecting copyrights and having products that you want to buy are a good thing.
So where is the contention.
Are you trying to get them to provide you with content that you want or are you scamming them as much as you think they are scamming you.
It has long been known that consumers want the best products for free.
The vendor wants to sell you the cheapest thing he can buy for as much as you can pay for it.
The business model hasn't changed there, how exactly do you expect them to change the scarcity/profit formula to suit your needs?
I'd really like to hear the people screaming about the bad business model to explain exactly how it should be changed, because I don't think they actually know what a business model is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009396</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>thenextstevejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1257500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.  If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.</p></div><p>
Ok, I'll give you that there's no LEGAL excuse. But ethical?
</p><p>
I realized something about piracy, that changed my viewpoint on it recently. And I think piracy is the sort of thing that most of us had an opinion on before we knew much about, and have essentially sought out opinions and resources that support our own point of view on it. Or maybe that's just me, anyhow:
</p><p>
This is what happened. I ride a bike to a very hilly campus every day. I'm not entirely positive that my bike is welcome on elevators. (I'm always relieved when I don't have to ride with someone else along with my bike, as I don't know if they are comfortable with it). However, there is a crucial point at which I can save carrying my bike up 5 flights of stairs if I ride this elevator with it. So I do.
</p><p>
I feel this is somewhat the dilemma the content providers are leaving me with. They've got a 10 story elevator and they want me to walk up the stairs to get their content. There's simply no way to tie down digital media files without completely changing the way that computer systems work. Do WHATEVER you want to the file, if someone can decode it to watch it, they can capture that stream and encode it in a way that can be shared. I'm sorry content providers, but it's GAME OVER.
</p><p>
And that's unfortunate for them, but I don't want my entire digital future dictated by some media companies needs. Because the laws they want to enact will take away the freedom and control you have over your systems.
</p><p>
Maybe high production value films and albums will go away. I think humanity, as a whole, will survive without that. Plus we have all the crap you've been spending tons of money on for years that we never saw, market that to us. Eventually this system will be rolled into the soil and something new will emerge. Some say this is obviously 'better' but I don't think it matters. The point is that the old system must go away if our freedom is to be retained.
</p><p>
I understand that this message will probably not get across and that these laws will pass and these content providers will continue to treat their customers like criminals. I believe this will leave us with one alternative: to exist digitally only on anonymous networks, encrypt all our traffic, let none know of our files
</p><p>
Things that are SO TRIVIALLY EASY such as downloading a file should not be made illegal. It's not going to work, whether I think piracy is OK or not.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
Ok , I 'll give you that there 's no LEGAL excuse .
But ethical ?
I realized something about piracy , that changed my viewpoint on it recently .
And I think piracy is the sort of thing that most of us had an opinion on before we knew much about , and have essentially sought out opinions and resources that support our own point of view on it .
Or maybe that 's just me , anyhow : This is what happened .
I ride a bike to a very hilly campus every day .
I 'm not entirely positive that my bike is welcome on elevators .
( I 'm always relieved when I do n't have to ride with someone else along with my bike , as I do n't know if they are comfortable with it ) .
However , there is a crucial point at which I can save carrying my bike up 5 flights of stairs if I ride this elevator with it .
So I do .
I feel this is somewhat the dilemma the content providers are leaving me with .
They 've got a 10 story elevator and they want me to walk up the stairs to get their content .
There 's simply no way to tie down digital media files without completely changing the way that computer systems work .
Do WHATEVER you want to the file , if someone can decode it to watch it , they can capture that stream and encode it in a way that can be shared .
I 'm sorry content providers , but it 's GAME OVER .
And that 's unfortunate for them , but I do n't want my entire digital future dictated by some media companies needs .
Because the laws they want to enact will take away the freedom and control you have over your systems .
Maybe high production value films and albums will go away .
I think humanity , as a whole , will survive without that .
Plus we have all the crap you 've been spending tons of money on for years that we never saw , market that to us .
Eventually this system will be rolled into the soil and something new will emerge .
Some say this is obviously 'better ' but I do n't think it matters .
The point is that the old system must go away if our freedom is to be retained .
I understand that this message will probably not get across and that these laws will pass and these content providers will continue to treat their customers like criminals .
I believe this will leave us with one alternative : to exist digitally only on anonymous networks , encrypt all our traffic , let none know of our files Things that are SO TRIVIALLY EASY such as downloading a file should not be made illegal .
It 's not going to work , whether I think piracy is OK or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
Ok, I'll give you that there's no LEGAL excuse.
But ethical?
I realized something about piracy, that changed my viewpoint on it recently.
And I think piracy is the sort of thing that most of us had an opinion on before we knew much about, and have essentially sought out opinions and resources that support our own point of view on it.
Or maybe that's just me, anyhow:

This is what happened.
I ride a bike to a very hilly campus every day.
I'm not entirely positive that my bike is welcome on elevators.
(I'm always relieved when I don't have to ride with someone else along with my bike, as I don't know if they are comfortable with it).
However, there is a crucial point at which I can save carrying my bike up 5 flights of stairs if I ride this elevator with it.
So I do.
I feel this is somewhat the dilemma the content providers are leaving me with.
They've got a 10 story elevator and they want me to walk up the stairs to get their content.
There's simply no way to tie down digital media files without completely changing the way that computer systems work.
Do WHATEVER you want to the file, if someone can decode it to watch it, they can capture that stream and encode it in a way that can be shared.
I'm sorry content providers, but it's GAME OVER.
And that's unfortunate for them, but I don't want my entire digital future dictated by some media companies needs.
Because the laws they want to enact will take away the freedom and control you have over your systems.
Maybe high production value films and albums will go away.
I think humanity, as a whole, will survive without that.
Plus we have all the crap you've been spending tons of money on for years that we never saw, market that to us.
Eventually this system will be rolled into the soil and something new will emerge.
Some say this is obviously 'better' but I don't think it matters.
The point is that the old system must go away if our freedom is to be retained.
I understand that this message will probably not get across and that these laws will pass and these content providers will continue to treat their customers like criminals.
I believe this will leave us with one alternative: to exist digitally only on anonymous networks, encrypt all our traffic, let none know of our files

Things that are SO TRIVIALLY EASY such as downloading a file should not be made illegal.
It's not going to work, whether I think piracy is OK or not.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012194</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257524100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero...</p></div><p>Many artists have, and always will, produce art for art's sake.  Far fewer than will produce art in exchange for money, certainly - but do we really have such a shortage of TV shows that it isn't worth sacrificing some of them for the sake of greater freedom in our society?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The creation cost for the content has always been , and will always be , non-zero...Many artists have , and always will , produce art for art 's sake .
Far fewer than will produce art in exchange for money , certainly - but do we really have such a shortage of TV shows that it is n't worth sacrificing some of them for the sake of greater freedom in our society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero...Many artists have, and always will, produce art for art's sake.
Far fewer than will produce art in exchange for money, certainly - but do we really have such a shortage of TV shows that it isn't worth sacrificing some of them for the sake of greater freedom in our society?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009636</id>
	<title>Ah, Dinosaurs...</title>
	<author>techoi</author>
	<datestamp>1257501600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am sure that the horse buggy whip manufacturers, ice block distribution kings, and whale oil lamp cartel had similar plans to change consumer behavior as well.  Problem is that the copyright cartel has done little or nothing to change with the times.  They have brought this on themselves.  It is humorous (annoying?) to see them operate as if they should be allowed to not change simply because they don't want to.  Why do they think they are different than every other corporation on the planet?  Times change.  Technology changes.  Adapt or die.  It is a fundamental pillar of capitalism (and biology as well, but that is different slashdot thread).  You have love their arrogance though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure that the horse buggy whip manufacturers , ice block distribution kings , and whale oil lamp cartel had similar plans to change consumer behavior as well .
Problem is that the copyright cartel has done little or nothing to change with the times .
They have brought this on themselves .
It is humorous ( annoying ?
) to see them operate as if they should be allowed to not change simply because they do n't want to .
Why do they think they are different than every other corporation on the planet ?
Times change .
Technology changes .
Adapt or die .
It is a fundamental pillar of capitalism ( and biology as well , but that is different slashdot thread ) .
You have love their arrogance though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure that the horse buggy whip manufacturers, ice block distribution kings, and whale oil lamp cartel had similar plans to change consumer behavior as well.
Problem is that the copyright cartel has done little or nothing to change with the times.
They have brought this on themselves.
It is humorous (annoying?
) to see them operate as if they should be allowed to not change simply because they don't want to.
Why do they think they are different than every other corporation on the planet?
Times change.
Technology changes.
Adapt or die.
It is a fundamental pillar of capitalism (and biology as well, but that is different slashdot thread).
You have love their arrogance though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010884</id>
	<title>Two Simple Words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257508260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUCK THEM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK THEM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK THEM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009314</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1257500160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $0 in revenue and covers no costs.</p></div><p>Wait, I thought those evil guys at TPB made millions?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand, via the Internet, pretty easy to get to.</p> </div><p>Artificial scarcity. Poor picture quality.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  Many TV shows that I enjoy can't be live.</p></div><p>Many shows have so much product placement that they should be paid for. (Granted actors can't make $2 million/episode and networks can't make billions on ad breaks) Also no reason that TV can't be shown in bars that pay subscriptions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $ 0 in revenue and covers no costs.Wait , I thought those evil guys at TPB made millions ?
I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand , via the Internet , pretty easy to get to .
Artificial scarcity .
Poor picture quality .
Many TV shows that I enjoy ca n't be live.Many shows have so much product placement that they should be paid for .
( Granted actors ca n't make $ 2 million/episode and networks ca n't make billions on ad breaks ) Also no reason that TV ca n't be shown in bars that pay subscriptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $0 in revenue and covers no costs.Wait, I thought those evil guys at TPB made millions?
I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand, via the Internet, pretty easy to get to.
Artificial scarcity.
Poor picture quality.
Many TV shows that I enjoy can't be live.Many shows have so much product placement that they should be paid for.
(Granted actors can't make $2 million/episode and networks can't make billions on ad breaks) Also no reason that TV can't be shown in bars that pay subscriptions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30007968</id>
	<title>dinero</title>
	<author>digitalsushi</author>
	<datestamp>1257537600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was making <a href="http://people.forbes.com/profile/stephen-b-burke/21312" title="forbes.com">2.2 million dollars a year salary</a> [forbes.com] I would probably say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was making 2.2 million dollars a year salary [ forbes.com ] I would probably say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was making 2.2 million dollars a year salary [forbes.com] I would probably say exactly what my bosses wanted to hear, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008268</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes - does this mean they might not make another Transformers movie? What will the world do without the high-quality creative output of geniuses like Michael "Explosions!!!!one1!!!!" Bay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes - does this mean they might not make another Transformers movie ?
What will the world do without the high-quality creative output of geniuses like Michael " Explosions ! ! ! ! one1 ! ! ! !
" Bay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes - does this mean they might not make another Transformers movie?
What will the world do without the high-quality creative output of geniuses like Michael "Explosions!!!!one1!!!!
" Bay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009034</id>
	<title>show me someone who says that...</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1257499020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting."</p><p>I read that as: "Bitch! They's people walkin' round out there with mah money in they's pocket! Get out there and sell mo' pussy!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" An entire generation is growing up , if we do n't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors , we 're going to wake up and see cord cutting .
" I read that as : " Bitch !
They 's people walkin ' round out there with mah money in they 's pocket !
Get out there and sell mo ' pussy !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue on the part of distributors, we're going to wake up and see cord cutting.
"I read that as: "Bitch!
They's people walkin' round out there with mah money in they's pocket!
Get out there and sell mo' pussy!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009244</id>
	<title>Let's be fair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257499920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear media execs, you most likely have no respect for my revenue stream, why would you. So I do not respect yours either.</p><p>You have to \_earn\_ it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear media execs , you most likely have no respect for my revenue stream , why would you .
So I do not respect yours either.You have to \ _earn \ _ it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear media execs, you most likely have no respect for my revenue stream, why would you.
So I do not respect yours either.You have to \_earn\_ it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008118</id>
	<title>I'm no financial wizard, but...</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1257538260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I'm guessing he is correct.  Its the spin being put on what he is saying that is outrageous:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The quotes really are quite stunning. Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change, rather than changing to match what customers want. A business model based on going against what consumers want doesn't seem likely to last that long.</p></div><p>What I'm stunned by is the assumption that Comcast's COO should be looking for ways to give people as much content as they want without them paying Comcast a penny to receive it.  Because lets be fair - this is exactly what customers want.</p><p>To color every contrary desire as stunning or greedy is just ignorant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'm guessing he is correct .
Its the spin being put on what he is saying that is outrageous : The quotes really are quite stunning .
Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change , rather than changing to match what customers want .
A business model based on going against what consumers want does n't seem likely to last that long.What I 'm stunned by is the assumption that Comcast 's COO should be looking for ways to give people as much content as they want without them paying Comcast a penny to receive it .
Because lets be fair - this is exactly what customers want.To color every contrary desire as stunning or greedy is just ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'm guessing he is correct.
Its the spin being put on what he is saying that is outrageous:The quotes really are quite stunning.
Burke basically seems to be saying the focus needs to be on figuring out ways to get consumers to change, rather than changing to match what customers want.
A business model based on going against what consumers want doesn't seem likely to last that long.What I'm stunned by is the assumption that Comcast's COO should be looking for ways to give people as much content as they want without them paying Comcast a penny to receive it.
Because lets be fair - this is exactly what customers want.To color every contrary desire as stunning or greedy is just ignorant.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30015302</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>inode\_buddha</author>
	<datestamp>1257619500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a happy subscriber to time-warner, with only basic cable and hi-speed internet.

I remember when the cable co first came through my town. There were loads of referendum meetings and etc. They spent a couple years yammering about how they wouldn't need ads anymore, and etc.

I would give my left huejas to be able to pick and choose only the chans that I actually watch. Furthermore, I would be glad to pay for them, if only these knuckle-heads could get that idea.
After all, I'm already paying, and big time at that.

Now that digital and HD TV is rolled out across my area (upstate NY), I think this is inexcusable. So would somebody plz send a quick memo to this asshat? And hint, yes I *have* operated at the CxO and VP level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a happy subscriber to time-warner , with only basic cable and hi-speed internet .
I remember when the cable co first came through my town .
There were loads of referendum meetings and etc .
They spent a couple years yammering about how they would n't need ads anymore , and etc .
I would give my left huejas to be able to pick and choose only the chans that I actually watch .
Furthermore , I would be glad to pay for them , if only these knuckle-heads could get that idea .
After all , I 'm already paying , and big time at that .
Now that digital and HD TV is rolled out across my area ( upstate NY ) , I think this is inexcusable .
So would somebody plz send a quick memo to this asshat ?
And hint , yes I * have * operated at the CxO and VP level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a happy subscriber to time-warner, with only basic cable and hi-speed internet.
I remember when the cable co first came through my town.
There were loads of referendum meetings and etc.
They spent a couple years yammering about how they wouldn't need ads anymore, and etc.
I would give my left huejas to be able to pick and choose only the chans that I actually watch.
Furthermore, I would be glad to pay for them, if only these knuckle-heads could get that idea.
After all, I'm already paying, and big time at that.
Now that digital and HD TV is rolled out across my area (upstate NY), I think this is inexcusable.
So would somebody plz send a quick memo to this asshat?
And hint, yes I *have* operated at the CxO and VP level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008104</id>
	<title>not without precedent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft proves it can be done with every release of Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft proves it can be done with every release of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft proves it can be done with every release of Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010640</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257506820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you seen the "don't steal movies" PSAs at the beginning of DVDs?  They're ridiculous.  They highlight the poor stuntmen and key grips who go hungry because people steal movies, while the studio execs drive Ferrarris and snort coke off their secretaries' bosoms.
<br> <br>
It's disingenuous at best.  Just like when the COO of a company which has been granted amazing regional monopolies, and which fights tooth and nail to retain those monopolies, says that they don't care what the consumer wants.
<br> <br>
His statements wouldn't be a problem for me if there were true competition in this realm.  But as it is, Comcast controls the video pipes for their entire regions.  And they typically control 50\% of the data pipes to consumers (regional bell DSL or FIOS, but not both, typically being offered as the other half of a regional duopoly).
<br> <br>
And if you want to get your video content from another source over their data pipes, they want to throttle you unless you or the vendor you're going to pays a premium.  And if you can get around that, well, then they establish exclusive distribution deals so that you can only get your content from them.
<br> <br>
Don't forget, copyright laws were intentionally written to ensure that more content ends up in the public domain.  That's not how it's working out, and it's clear from this guy's statements that he is only interested in the aspects of copyright law that let him wring every last penny out of consumers.
<br> <br>
There's nothing illegal about what he's saying, but it's definitely motivated by greed, and that's one of the 7 deadly sins, IIRC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen the " do n't steal movies " PSAs at the beginning of DVDs ?
They 're ridiculous .
They highlight the poor stuntmen and key grips who go hungry because people steal movies , while the studio execs drive Ferrarris and snort coke off their secretaries ' bosoms .
It 's disingenuous at best .
Just like when the COO of a company which has been granted amazing regional monopolies , and which fights tooth and nail to retain those monopolies , says that they do n't care what the consumer wants .
His statements would n't be a problem for me if there were true competition in this realm .
But as it is , Comcast controls the video pipes for their entire regions .
And they typically control 50 \ % of the data pipes to consumers ( regional bell DSL or FIOS , but not both , typically being offered as the other half of a regional duopoly ) .
And if you want to get your video content from another source over their data pipes , they want to throttle you unless you or the vendor you 're going to pays a premium .
And if you can get around that , well , then they establish exclusive distribution deals so that you can only get your content from them .
Do n't forget , copyright laws were intentionally written to ensure that more content ends up in the public domain .
That 's not how it 's working out , and it 's clear from this guy 's statements that he is only interested in the aspects of copyright law that let him wring every last penny out of consumers .
There 's nothing illegal about what he 's saying , but it 's definitely motivated by greed , and that 's one of the 7 deadly sins , IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen the "don't steal movies" PSAs at the beginning of DVDs?
They're ridiculous.
They highlight the poor stuntmen and key grips who go hungry because people steal movies, while the studio execs drive Ferrarris and snort coke off their secretaries' bosoms.
It's disingenuous at best.
Just like when the COO of a company which has been granted amazing regional monopolies, and which fights tooth and nail to retain those monopolies, says that they don't care what the consumer wants.
His statements wouldn't be a problem for me if there were true competition in this realm.
But as it is, Comcast controls the video pipes for their entire regions.
And they typically control 50\% of the data pipes to consumers (regional bell DSL or FIOS, but not both, typically being offered as the other half of a regional duopoly).
And if you want to get your video content from another source over their data pipes, they want to throttle you unless you or the vendor you're going to pays a premium.
And if you can get around that, well, then they establish exclusive distribution deals so that you can only get your content from them.
Don't forget, copyright laws were intentionally written to ensure that more content ends up in the public domain.
That's not how it's working out, and it's clear from this guy's statements that he is only interested in the aspects of copyright law that let him wring every last penny out of consumers.
There's nothing illegal about what he's saying, but it's definitely motivated by greed, and that's one of the 7 deadly sins, IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008876</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>stupkid</author>
	<datestamp>1257498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot". Something darker and edgy. Too bad Chris Farley is dead, he would have made an awesome, cocaine addicted Skipper. I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></div><p>Wasn't that Lost?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping for a Gilligan 's Island " reboot " .
Something darker and edgy .
Too bad Chris Farley is dead , he would have made an awesome , cocaine addicted Skipper .
I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable , because I believe great art should be a labor of love , unsullied by commercial interests : -DWas n't that Lost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot".
Something darker and edgy.
Too bad Chris Farley is dead, he would have made an awesome, cocaine addicted Skipper.
I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests :-DWasn't that Lost?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009894</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257502680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many places to consume content, yes, but their terms aren't the ideal ones.<p>iTunes will only sell you MP3s and all their video offerings are DRMed.</p><p> Hulu will only keep shows for a certain amount of time and won't let you download them, I can do this now with a TV tuner and recording software, I fail to see why they don't offer downloadable episodes with ads.</p><p> Netflix is a rental service, I understand that and I subscribe to them happily, I wish the streams to the computer would be in HD but otherwise it is a flawless service.</p><p> I think the big problem for media companies is that their are so many options to get content, plus different things, such as videogames or books all compete for the same piece of entertainment pie, there's only so much to go around.  Also sqrt(2) is totally right, if they want to really drive sales they should start lowering some of those prices and offer DRM free downloads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many places to consume content , yes , but their terms are n't the ideal ones.iTunes will only sell you MP3s and all their video offerings are DRMed .
Hulu will only keep shows for a certain amount of time and wo n't let you download them , I can do this now with a TV tuner and recording software , I fail to see why they do n't offer downloadable episodes with ads .
Netflix is a rental service , I understand that and I subscribe to them happily , I wish the streams to the computer would be in HD but otherwise it is a flawless service .
I think the big problem for media companies is that their are so many options to get content , plus different things , such as videogames or books all compete for the same piece of entertainment pie , there 's only so much to go around .
Also sqrt ( 2 ) is totally right , if they want to really drive sales they should start lowering some of those prices and offer DRM free downloads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many places to consume content, yes, but their terms aren't the ideal ones.iTunes will only sell you MP3s and all their video offerings are DRMed.
Hulu will only keep shows for a certain amount of time and won't let you download them, I can do this now with a TV tuner and recording software, I fail to see why they don't offer downloadable episodes with ads.
Netflix is a rental service, I understand that and I subscribe to them happily, I wish the streams to the computer would be in HD but otherwise it is a flawless service.
I think the big problem for media companies is that their are so many options to get content, plus different things, such as videogames or books all compete for the same piece of entertainment pie, there's only so much to go around.
Also sqrt(2) is totally right, if they want to really drive sales they should start lowering some of those prices and offer DRM free downloads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009990</id>
	<title>The Corporate View</title>
	<author>johnos</author>
	<datestamp>1257503100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first job of any executive is to protect the existing revenue stream. The problem with telling an existing multi-billion dollar company to come up with a new business model is like trying to take a 90 degree turn in a 747.  The aircraft will not survive the maneuver.
<br> <br>
Everyone knows the content and distribution businesses have to change.  Nobody has any idea how or what the result looks like.  Its not like culture will come to an end, there was culture before TV and record companies.  But empires have been built and the people they employ are going to do their best to save them. That's not a conspiracy, its the nature of institutions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first job of any executive is to protect the existing revenue stream .
The problem with telling an existing multi-billion dollar company to come up with a new business model is like trying to take a 90 degree turn in a 747 .
The aircraft will not survive the maneuver .
Everyone knows the content and distribution businesses have to change .
Nobody has any idea how or what the result looks like .
Its not like culture will come to an end , there was culture before TV and record companies .
But empires have been built and the people they employ are going to do their best to save them .
That 's not a conspiracy , its the nature of institutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first job of any executive is to protect the existing revenue stream.
The problem with telling an existing multi-billion dollar company to come up with a new business model is like trying to take a 90 degree turn in a 747.
The aircraft will not survive the maneuver.
Everyone knows the content and distribution businesses have to change.
Nobody has any idea how or what the result looks like.
Its not like culture will come to an end, there was culture before TV and record companies.
But empires have been built and the people they employ are going to do their best to save them.
That's not a conspiracy, its the nature of institutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010688</id>
	<title>Re:It's way too late for change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257507060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So tell me in 20 year time, how are they going to get money to make said TV shows and movies if: everyone downloads them free, and there are no advertisement?</p><p>Live performance TV shows? Sorry, that may work for singers for TV shows and movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So tell me in 20 year time , how are they going to get money to make said TV shows and movies if : everyone downloads them free , and there are no advertisement ? Live performance TV shows ?
Sorry , that may work for singers for TV shows and movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So tell me in 20 year time, how are they going to get money to make said TV shows and movies if: everyone downloads them free, and there are no advertisement?Live performance TV shows?
Sorry, that may work for singers for TV shows and movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010938</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257508800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</i></p><p>How many movies or recordings have you made and given away as a labor of love?  Don't you think your boss wants you to work for the love of it?  How much tyme do you spend volunteering?  Or is it you want your entertainment free but want be paid for your labor?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable , because I believe great art should be a labor of love , unsullied by commercial interests : -DHow many movies or recordings have you made and given away as a labor of love ?
Do n't you think your boss wants you to work for the love of it ?
How much tyme do you spend volunteering ?
Or is it you want your entertainment free but want be paid for your labor ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests :-DHow many movies or recordings have you made and given away as a labor of love?
Don't you think your boss wants you to work for the love of it?
How much tyme do you spend volunteering?
Or is it you want your entertainment free but want be paid for your labor?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430</id>
	<title>Re:It's way too late for change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lived in a house for a year with six other 18-25 year olds.</p><p>We had no TV.</p><p>Well, we did have a TV, but you couldn't watch TV on it. It was rigged up to a PS3, Xbox, Wii, and when neccessary, laptops. We played games, watched downloaded films and TV shows, the odd youtube video, in fact on occasion and actual webpage. We'd get a hanking for a show, say Heroes, we'd download the whole thing in one slurp at watch it all. Come Halloween, it was  Friday 13th marathon(Do not watch 4). The TV was not even rigged up to terrestrial channels. If I'd been so inclined, I would have set up a central server we could have all thrown our movies, etc onto. Bit of a missed opportunity now that I think of it.</p><p>I can actually remember sitting down to watch TV for a fews hours, or waiting for a good show to come on that evening, and I swear its like I'm remembering a past life. The idea to me now, of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour, sitting through all those ads, actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion. I cannot imagine doing it anymore, and I don't.</p><p>It's going to be very difficult to explain to the generation currently growing up exactly how we managed to waste so much time in front of the TV. If they see what we had to put up with, they're just never going to believe it. When the time comes, and they are asked to stump up $50 a month for such garbage, they are literally going to laugh in the face of the likes of Comcast. The notion of TV itself will be absurd to them, let alone paying for it. It will be as absurd to them as those old 1950's informational shorts are to us now.</p><p>This business model has perhaps, 20 years before the bottom falls out, and this article shows that the know it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lived in a house for a year with six other 18-25 year olds.We had no TV.Well , we did have a TV , but you could n't watch TV on it .
It was rigged up to a PS3 , Xbox , Wii , and when neccessary , laptops .
We played games , watched downloaded films and TV shows , the odd youtube video , in fact on occasion and actual webpage .
We 'd get a hanking for a show , say Heroes , we 'd download the whole thing in one slurp at watch it all .
Come Halloween , it was Friday 13th marathon ( Do not watch 4 ) .
The TV was not even rigged up to terrestrial channels .
If I 'd been so inclined , I would have set up a central server we could have all thrown our movies , etc onto .
Bit of a missed opportunity now that I think of it.I can actually remember sitting down to watch TV for a fews hours , or waiting for a good show to come on that evening , and I swear its like I 'm remembering a past life .
The idea to me now , of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour , sitting through all those ads , actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule ; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion .
I can not imagine doing it anymore , and I do n't.It 's going to be very difficult to explain to the generation currently growing up exactly how we managed to waste so much time in front of the TV .
If they see what we had to put up with , they 're just never going to believe it .
When the time comes , and they are asked to stump up $ 50 a month for such garbage , they are literally going to laugh in the face of the likes of Comcast .
The notion of TV itself will be absurd to them , let alone paying for it .
It will be as absurd to them as those old 1950 's informational shorts are to us now.This business model has perhaps , 20 years before the bottom falls out , and this article shows that the know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lived in a house for a year with six other 18-25 year olds.We had no TV.Well, we did have a TV, but you couldn't watch TV on it.
It was rigged up to a PS3, Xbox, Wii, and when neccessary, laptops.
We played games, watched downloaded films and TV shows, the odd youtube video, in fact on occasion and actual webpage.
We'd get a hanking for a show, say Heroes, we'd download the whole thing in one slurp at watch it all.
Come Halloween, it was  Friday 13th marathon(Do not watch 4).
The TV was not even rigged up to terrestrial channels.
If I'd been so inclined, I would have set up a central server we could have all thrown our movies, etc onto.
Bit of a missed opportunity now that I think of it.I can actually remember sitting down to watch TV for a fews hours, or waiting for a good show to come on that evening, and I swear its like I'm remembering a past life.
The idea to me now, of sitting down to watch TV for more than a half hour, sitting through all those ads, actually making my leisure time fit someones else schedule; this idea is by now a completely foreign notion.
I cannot imagine doing it anymore, and I don't.It's going to be very difficult to explain to the generation currently growing up exactly how we managed to waste so much time in front of the TV.
If they see what we had to put up with, they're just never going to believe it.
When the time comes, and they are asked to stump up $50 a month for such garbage, they are literally going to laugh in the face of the likes of Comcast.
The notion of TV itself will be absurd to them, let alone paying for it.
It will be as absurd to them as those old 1950's informational shorts are to us now.This business model has perhaps, 20 years before the bottom falls out, and this article shows that the know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011670</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>orin</author>
	<datestamp>1257516120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Customers are people that pay for things. People that do not pay for things are not customers. There is no business model for art that can be digitally reproduced. In the future, all art that can be digitally reproduced will be done by volunteers as there is no way to professionalize art that can be digitally reproduced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Customers are people that pay for things .
People that do not pay for things are not customers .
There is no business model for art that can be digitally reproduced .
In the future , all art that can be digitally reproduced will be done by volunteers as there is no way to professionalize art that can be digitally reproduced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Customers are people that pay for things.
People that do not pay for things are not customers.
There is no business model for art that can be digitally reproduced.
In the future, all art that can be digitally reproduced will be done by volunteers as there is no way to professionalize art that can be digitally reproduced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042</id>
	<title>Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1257537900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If nothing changes, producers will stop producing when they realize they'll never make back their $250 millon in production costs. The cable companies won't be able to keep subscribers if all they're showing are Gilligan's Island reruns. They'll be poorer and we'll be richer as a result. Is there still a problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing changes , producers will stop producing when they realize they 'll never make back their $ 250 millon in production costs .
The cable companies wo n't be able to keep subscribers if all they 're showing are Gilligan 's Island reruns .
They 'll be poorer and we 'll be richer as a result .
Is there still a problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing changes, producers will stop producing when they realize they'll never make back their $250 millon in production costs.
The cable companies won't be able to keep subscribers if all they're showing are Gilligan's Island reruns.
They'll be poorer and we'll be richer as a result.
Is there still a problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009420</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1257500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The sense of entitlement is sickening...This generation grew up wanting certain things</p></div><p>Can you honestly not see the hypocrisy in what you say? Exactly whose sense of entitlement do you find sickening? Business wanting to be paid to produce something, this generation for wanting to have everything for free, or both?</p><p>You are not entitled to be entertained for free. At some point, somebody has to pay for it. Under an advertising model, those strange people who actually watch commercials are really patrons of the arts. They subsidise your free viewing. When there aren't enough people viewing the ads, it results in the expensive dramas disappearing and cheap, crappy reality TV shows taking their place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sense of entitlement is sickening...This generation grew up wanting certain thingsCan you honestly not see the hypocrisy in what you say ?
Exactly whose sense of entitlement do you find sickening ?
Business wanting to be paid to produce something , this generation for wanting to have everything for free , or both ? You are not entitled to be entertained for free .
At some point , somebody has to pay for it .
Under an advertising model , those strange people who actually watch commercials are really patrons of the arts .
They subsidise your free viewing .
When there are n't enough people viewing the ads , it results in the expensive dramas disappearing and cheap , crappy reality TV shows taking their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sense of entitlement is sickening...This generation grew up wanting certain thingsCan you honestly not see the hypocrisy in what you say?
Exactly whose sense of entitlement do you find sickening?
Business wanting to be paid to produce something, this generation for wanting to have everything for free, or both?You are not entitled to be entertained for free.
At some point, somebody has to pay for it.
Under an advertising model, those strange people who actually watch commercials are really patrons of the arts.
They subsidise your free viewing.
When there aren't enough people viewing the ads, it results in the expensive dramas disappearing and cheap, crappy reality TV shows taking their place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009100</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get it.</p><p>He wants to maintain a revenue stream. He wants to cut the cord of "consumers" who actually pay for service. How exactly does that help the bottom line? Does he intend to continue billing after disconnecting those paying customers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get it.He wants to maintain a revenue stream .
He wants to cut the cord of " consumers " who actually pay for service .
How exactly does that help the bottom line ?
Does he intend to continue billing after disconnecting those paying customers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get it.He wants to maintain a revenue stream.
He wants to cut the cord of "consumers" who actually pay for service.
How exactly does that help the bottom line?
Does he intend to continue billing after disconnecting those paying customers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008998</id>
	<title>Re:It's way too late for change</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1257498900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree.  I've been downloading my favorite shows for 4 years now.  I could never conceive of watching on TV anymore and dealing with that 20 minutes of Ads in order to enjoy a 42 minute episode.  I watch my shows whenever I feel like it and sometimes hours before the shows air on TV here (People upload the East Coast airing).  I get all my DVDs from Netflix and slowly am finding it harder to force myself to go into the theater for a movie because of all the crap I have to sit through before I get to the movie.  I spend a good 20-30 minutes in my car going to and from the theater, another 10 minutes waiting for the ads to start, 10 minutes watching commercials and then 10-15 minutes watching previews for movies (most of which I've already seen online before hand).  I find it hard to deal with all that shit just to enjoy a movie especially now that i have to put up with morons who don't know how to keep quiet during a movie.  Soon I may just stop watching movies in theaters completely and watch everything on netflix months later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I 've been downloading my favorite shows for 4 years now .
I could never conceive of watching on TV anymore and dealing with that 20 minutes of Ads in order to enjoy a 42 minute episode .
I watch my shows whenever I feel like it and sometimes hours before the shows air on TV here ( People upload the East Coast airing ) .
I get all my DVDs from Netflix and slowly am finding it harder to force myself to go into the theater for a movie because of all the crap I have to sit through before I get to the movie .
I spend a good 20-30 minutes in my car going to and from the theater , another 10 minutes waiting for the ads to start , 10 minutes watching commercials and then 10-15 minutes watching previews for movies ( most of which I 've already seen online before hand ) .
I find it hard to deal with all that shit just to enjoy a movie especially now that i have to put up with morons who do n't know how to keep quiet during a movie .
Soon I may just stop watching movies in theaters completely and watch everything on netflix months later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I've been downloading my favorite shows for 4 years now.
I could never conceive of watching on TV anymore and dealing with that 20 minutes of Ads in order to enjoy a 42 minute episode.
I watch my shows whenever I feel like it and sometimes hours before the shows air on TV here (People upload the East Coast airing).
I get all my DVDs from Netflix and slowly am finding it harder to force myself to go into the theater for a movie because of all the crap I have to sit through before I get to the movie.
I spend a good 20-30 minutes in my car going to and from the theater, another 10 minutes waiting for the ads to start, 10 minutes watching commercials and then 10-15 minutes watching previews for movies (most of which I've already seen online before hand).
I find it hard to deal with all that shit just to enjoy a movie especially now that i have to put up with morons who don't know how to keep quiet during a movie.
Soon I may just stop watching movies in theaters completely and watch everything on netflix months later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008984</id>
	<title>Cable companies of the future will just be ISPs</title>
	<author>aggles</author>
	<datestamp>1257498840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cable companies are the ones that have to change.  They may lose all their media business and be stuck just pumping bits through their Internet tubes.  I get my phone from Vonage, and many movies from Roku/Netflix.  That is just the start of where things are headed.  The concept of broadcasting at a specific time, and having schedules is becoming quite quaint.  The cable companies can compete for a piece of mny content dollar just like any company connected to the Internet.  They may have attractive bundles that makes it worth while, but their current business model is headed out the door.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cable companies are the ones that have to change .
They may lose all their media business and be stuck just pumping bits through their Internet tubes .
I get my phone from Vonage , and many movies from Roku/Netflix .
That is just the start of where things are headed .
The concept of broadcasting at a specific time , and having schedules is becoming quite quaint .
The cable companies can compete for a piece of mny content dollar just like any company connected to the Internet .
They may have attractive bundles that makes it worth while , but their current business model is headed out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cable companies are the ones that have to change.
They may lose all their media business and be stuck just pumping bits through their Internet tubes.
I get my phone from Vonage, and many movies from Roku/Netflix.
That is just the start of where things are headed.
The concept of broadcasting at a specific time, and having schedules is becoming quite quaint.
The cable companies can compete for a piece of mny content dollar just like any company connected to the Internet.
They may have attractive bundles that makes it worth while, but their current business model is headed out the door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008052</id>
	<title>He's Right!</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1257537960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should all change to meet his business goals. You all need to stop being so self centered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should all change to meet his business goals .
You all need to stop being so self centered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should all change to meet his business goals.
You all need to stop being so self centered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008408</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1257539520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously you don't understand how economics works here.</p><p>The cable companies have billions of dollars in cash.  When they become unprofitable and start bleeding money, they simply bribe a bunch of senators.</p><p>Suddenly, the "free-market" Republicans will start shouting things like "too big to fail" and someone else will shout "American jobs!" and everyone will be afraid to disagree.</p><p>Then the federal government will use our tax money to bail out Comcast and all the other cable providers, and Steve Burke will trade in his yacht for a slightly larger one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you do n't understand how economics works here.The cable companies have billions of dollars in cash .
When they become unprofitable and start bleeding money , they simply bribe a bunch of senators.Suddenly , the " free-market " Republicans will start shouting things like " too big to fail " and someone else will shout " American jobs !
" and everyone will be afraid to disagree.Then the federal government will use our tax money to bail out Comcast and all the other cable providers , and Steve Burke will trade in his yacht for a slightly larger one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you don't understand how economics works here.The cable companies have billions of dollars in cash.
When they become unprofitable and start bleeding money, they simply bribe a bunch of senators.Suddenly, the "free-market" Republicans will start shouting things like "too big to fail" and someone else will shout "American jobs!
" and everyone will be afraid to disagree.Then the federal government will use our tax money to bail out Comcast and all the other cable providers, and Steve Burke will trade in his yacht for a slightly larger one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>AcidPenguin9873</author>
	<datestamp>1257539400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Entitlement goes both ways.  The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its *distribution cost* and *replication cost* is $0.  The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero, but it was always amortized into the distribution cost.  Distribution via broadcasting always brought in advertising revenue, which covered all the costs.  Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $0 in revenue and covers no costs. [1]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free.</p></div><p>I disagree.  There is iTunes/Amazon for music, Hulu for TV (*even* if they go to a subscription model), Netflix on demand for movies.  I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand, via the Internet, pretty easy to get to.  The business models weren't going to change in the one year that Napster came out.  It's taken 10 years.  But it has happened.  The only thing that hasn't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $0, and if these creators are going to stay in business, I don't see how that's ever going to happen.</p><p>Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one.  "Live performance" isn't good enough.  Many TV shows that I enjoy can't be live.  Software developers should *not* have to go on speaking tours to make money, like that ridiculous study out of Harvard said they should.  I do not want to go to a book reading.</p><p>[1] As an aside, I fully support the notion that *distributors* should get much less of the money.  They are just a pipe, a utility for the content creators to sell their content.  No one on Slashdot ever wants to make the distinction between distributors, who are invariably big media conglomerates that are easy to hate, and content creators, who might be a team of talented writers and actors and filmmakers that actually produce enjoyable stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Entitlement goes both ways .
The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its * distribution cost * and * replication cost * is $ 0 .
The creation cost for the content has always been , and will always be , non-zero , but it was always amortized into the distribution cost .
Distribution via broadcasting always brought in advertising revenue , which covered all the costs .
Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $ 0 in revenue and covers no costs .
[ 1 ] This generation grew up wanting certain things , the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music , movies , and games they want for free.I disagree .
There is iTunes/Amazon for music , Hulu for TV ( * even * if they go to a subscription model ) , Netflix on demand for movies .
I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand , via the Internet , pretty easy to get to .
The business models were n't going to change in the one year that Napster came out .
It 's taken 10 years .
But it has happened .
The only thing that has n't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $ 0 , and if these creators are going to stay in business , I do n't see how that 's ever going to happen.Look , everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content , but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one .
" Live performance " is n't good enough .
Many TV shows that I enjoy ca n't be live .
Software developers should * not * have to go on speaking tours to make money , like that ridiculous study out of Harvard said they should .
I do not want to go to a book reading .
[ 1 ] As an aside , I fully support the notion that * distributors * should get much less of the money .
They are just a pipe , a utility for the content creators to sell their content .
No one on Slashdot ever wants to make the distinction between distributors , who are invariably big media conglomerates that are easy to hate , and content creators , who might be a team of talented writers and actors and filmmakers that actually produce enjoyable stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entitlement goes both ways.
The entire generation you speak of feels entitled to enjoy free content because its *distribution cost* and *replication cost* is $0.
The creation cost for the content has always been, and will always be, non-zero, but it was always amortized into the distribution cost.
Distribution via broadcasting always brought in advertising revenue, which covered all the costs.
Distribution via BitTorrent brings in $0 in revenue and covers no costs.
[1]This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free.I disagree.
There is iTunes/Amazon for music, Hulu for TV (*even* if they go to a subscription model), Netflix on demand for movies.
I would say lots of good content is now available on-demand, via the Internet, pretty easy to get to.
The business models weren't going to change in the one year that Napster came out.
It's taken 10 years.
But it has happened.
The only thing that hasn't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $0, and if these creators are going to stay in business, I don't see how that's ever going to happen.Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one.
"Live performance" isn't good enough.
Many TV shows that I enjoy can't be live.
Software developers should *not* have to go on speaking tours to make money, like that ridiculous study out of Harvard said they should.
I do not want to go to a book reading.
[1] As an aside, I fully support the notion that *distributors* should get much less of the money.
They are just a pipe, a utility for the content creators to sell their content.
No one on Slashdot ever wants to make the distinction between distributors, who are invariably big media conglomerates that are easy to hate, and content creators, who might be a team of talented writers and actors and filmmakers that actually produce enjoyable stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009670</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1257501840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm" title="dklevine.com">Here.</a> [dklevine.com]

</p><p>Short version: Copyright is the intellectual monopoly. Multiple studies failed to produce even as much as a shred of evidence that copyright increases creativity. On the contrary, it is routinely being used as an anti-competitive device, as the means to forbid an improved version of an idea, as a censorship tool. If the market was truly free and competitive, the price of those copies would be orders of magnitude smaller, while recouping the cost of producing the first copy would still be quite possible. These are compelling economic and moral reasons  to resist the intellectual monopoly, which basically means (1) boycotting their outlets and (2) ignoring an unjust and largely unenforceable law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content , but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one .
Here. [ dklevine.com ] Short version : Copyright is the intellectual monopoly .
Multiple studies failed to produce even as much as a shred of evidence that copyright increases creativity .
On the contrary , it is routinely being used as an anti-competitive device , as the means to forbid an improved version of an idea , as a censorship tool .
If the market was truly free and competitive , the price of those copies would be orders of magnitude smaller , while recouping the cost of producing the first copy would still be quite possible .
These are compelling economic and moral reasons to resist the intellectual monopoly , which basically means ( 1 ) boycotting their outlets and ( 2 ) ignoring an unjust and largely unenforceable law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, everyone here can make up plenty of reasons for why they deserve free content, but in a capitalist economy I have yet to hear a single good one.
Here. [dklevine.com]

Short version: Copyright is the intellectual monopoly.
Multiple studies failed to produce even as much as a shred of evidence that copyright increases creativity.
On the contrary, it is routinely being used as an anti-competitive device, as the means to forbid an improved version of an idea, as a censorship tool.
If the market was truly free and competitive, the price of those copies would be orders of magnitude smaller, while recouping the cost of producing the first copy would still be quite possible.
These are compelling economic and moral reasons  to resist the intellectual monopoly, which basically means (1) boycotting their outlets and (2) ignoring an unjust and largely unenforceable law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010258</id>
	<title>"cord cutting"</title>
	<author>mofag</author>
	<datestamp>1257504480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cut the cord and I don't miss it. The funny thing is the cable company keeps calling me up and offering me free cable. I tried it over summer and my wife and I made a concerted effort to watch cable. The thing is though, and I expect you're not going to believe me when I tell you this, they expect you to organise your life around their schedule if you want to watch a specific show. I know! Also, the amount of adverts just made it completely unwatchable. So I took the box back. Since then the cable company still calls me up offering free cable and I tell them we're not interested. They said if I ever change my mind I can have another two months of free cable and again with no obligation. I'm thinking maybe I'll let it in the house for the NHL playoffs.Then again....</p><p>The world has changed. Cable companies haven't and wont. They will go the way of the newspaper and the dial-up internet ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cut the cord and I do n't miss it .
The funny thing is the cable company keeps calling me up and offering me free cable .
I tried it over summer and my wife and I made a concerted effort to watch cable .
The thing is though , and I expect you 're not going to believe me when I tell you this , they expect you to organise your life around their schedule if you want to watch a specific show .
I know !
Also , the amount of adverts just made it completely unwatchable .
So I took the box back .
Since then the cable company still calls me up offering free cable and I tell them we 're not interested .
They said if I ever change my mind I can have another two months of free cable and again with no obligation .
I 'm thinking maybe I 'll let it in the house for the NHL playoffs.Then again....The world has changed .
Cable companies have n't and wont .
They will go the way of the newspaper and the dial-up internet ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cut the cord and I don't miss it.
The funny thing is the cable company keeps calling me up and offering me free cable.
I tried it over summer and my wife and I made a concerted effort to watch cable.
The thing is though, and I expect you're not going to believe me when I tell you this, they expect you to organise your life around their schedule if you want to watch a specific show.
I know!
Also, the amount of adverts just made it completely unwatchable.
So I took the box back.
Since then the cable company still calls me up offering free cable and I tell them we're not interested.
They said if I ever change my mind I can have another two months of free cable and again with no obligation.
I'm thinking maybe I'll let it in the house for the NHL playoffs.Then again....The world has changed.
Cable companies haven't and wont.
They will go the way of the newspaper and the dial-up internet ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009440</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>TrailerTrash</author>
	<datestamp>1257500760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank goodness, a little sanity. "They should concentrate on making innovative products at prices people are willing to pay." It's interesting that no one (1) ever has suggestions on what those "innovations" should be; and (2) ever mentions that the only price they are willing to pay is zero.</p><p>The recent flap over Hulu charging was a bunch of posts like "LOL. They just don't get it LOL. If Hulu charges I'll just go somewhere else and get it free, LOL." How much do you think Hulu has to pay for their media streaming bandwidth? Media distribution costs are NOT ZERO!</p><p>One can usually tell where things are heading when you see the phrase "they just don't get it" in a story summary.</p><p>Music and movies are copied freely because they can be, in the privacy of people's homes, not because we believe we have some sort of "right" to content at prices WE choose. (Who granted you that right, anyway?) If food could be "acquired" for free we would all be saying that farmers just don't get it when they charge for creation. If cars could be "acquired" for free we would all say that manufacturers just don't get it. If software could be "acquired" for... Oh wait, scratch that example. Software is stolen all the time.</p><p>For every product you introduce that is stealable with close to no risk, people will. Surprise!</p><p>If the whiners could spend a tenth of their effort in suggesting new innovative models that would result in consumers turning off their bittorrent servers and pulling out their credit cards I'd believe there was something to "get". All I "get" is that if a product can be stolen for no risk, it will be.</p><p>Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness , a little sanity .
" They should concentrate on making innovative products at prices people are willing to pay .
" It 's interesting that no one ( 1 ) ever has suggestions on what those " innovations " should be ; and ( 2 ) ever mentions that the only price they are willing to pay is zero.The recent flap over Hulu charging was a bunch of posts like " LOL .
They just do n't get it LOL .
If Hulu charges I 'll just go somewhere else and get it free , LOL .
" How much do you think Hulu has to pay for their media streaming bandwidth ?
Media distribution costs are NOT ZERO ! One can usually tell where things are heading when you see the phrase " they just do n't get it " in a story summary.Music and movies are copied freely because they can be , in the privacy of people 's homes , not because we believe we have some sort of " right " to content at prices WE choose .
( Who granted you that right , anyway ?
) If food could be " acquired " for free we would all be saying that farmers just do n't get it when they charge for creation .
If cars could be " acquired " for free we would all say that manufacturers just do n't get it .
If software could be " acquired " for... Oh wait , scratch that example .
Software is stolen all the time.For every product you introduce that is stealable with close to no risk , people will .
Surprise ! If the whiners could spend a tenth of their effort in suggesting new innovative models that would result in consumers turning off their bittorrent servers and pulling out their credit cards I 'd believe there was something to " get " .
All I " get " is that if a product can be stolen for no risk , it will be.Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness, a little sanity.
"They should concentrate on making innovative products at prices people are willing to pay.
" It's interesting that no one (1) ever has suggestions on what those "innovations" should be; and (2) ever mentions that the only price they are willing to pay is zero.The recent flap over Hulu charging was a bunch of posts like "LOL.
They just don't get it LOL.
If Hulu charges I'll just go somewhere else and get it free, LOL.
" How much do you think Hulu has to pay for their media streaming bandwidth?
Media distribution costs are NOT ZERO!One can usually tell where things are heading when you see the phrase "they just don't get it" in a story summary.Music and movies are copied freely because they can be, in the privacy of people's homes, not because we believe we have some sort of "right" to content at prices WE choose.
(Who granted you that right, anyway?
) If food could be "acquired" for free we would all be saying that farmers just don't get it when they charge for creation.
If cars could be "acquired" for free we would all say that manufacturers just don't get it.
If software could be "acquired" for... Oh wait, scratch that example.
Software is stolen all the time.For every product you introduce that is stealable with close to no risk, people will.
Surprise!If the whiners could spend a tenth of their effort in suggesting new innovative models that would result in consumers turning off their bittorrent servers and pulling out their credit cards I'd believe there was something to "get".
All I "get" is that if a product can be stolen for no risk, it will be.Sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</id>
	<title>Entitlement</title>
	<author>sqrt(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1257538080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sense of entitlement is sickening. No business has a right to make profit, and I certainly don't have to "recpect" their revenue stream. This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free. There are now millions of people who will go their entire lives without purchasing much content, and they were created by the greed and incompetence of the RIAA/MPAA and friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sense of entitlement is sickening .
No business has a right to make profit , and I certainly do n't have to " recpect " their revenue stream .
This generation grew up wanting certain things , the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music , movies , and games they want for free .
There are now millions of people who will go their entire lives without purchasing much content , and they were created by the greed and incompetence of the RIAA/MPAA and friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sense of entitlement is sickening.
No business has a right to make profit, and I certainly don't have to "recpect" their revenue stream.
This generation grew up wanting certain things, the dinosaurs in the content industries refused to adapt and now people are used to getting music, movies, and games they want for free.
There are now millions of people who will go their entire lives without purchasing much content, and they were created by the greed and incompetence of the RIAA/MPAA and friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009760</id>
	<title>I don't agree with your "World of Goo" conclusion</title>
	<author>Schickeneder</author>
	<datestamp>1257502140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The World of Goo payment experiment did not demonstrate that customers in general will pay far less than a product is worth. It just showed that customers will pay the value of a particular product to them. The World of Goo had been on sale for a long time prior to this experiment. Many people purchased the game previously at other set prices--those people that saw that product to them as being more valuable. I'm sure there were also a fair number of others who played the demo and decided the full version wasn't worth it (maybe when it cost $15.00 or so).</p><p>I will occasionally download pirated software. This is generally software or music that I really don't value or only need to use once, and really doesn't hold enough value to me to justify paying the full price. These are foundational principles of economics.</p><p>I am also the type of person who will decide I need a particular product, pick a few models and wait until I find one in my price range, or  wait for prices to drop if I don't value it at it's current price (I'm still waiting on a logitech z 5500 to go down in price).</p><p>I could be wrong, but I think these are reasonable practices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The World of Goo payment experiment did not demonstrate that customers in general will pay far less than a product is worth .
It just showed that customers will pay the value of a particular product to them .
The World of Goo had been on sale for a long time prior to this experiment .
Many people purchased the game previously at other set prices--those people that saw that product to them as being more valuable .
I 'm sure there were also a fair number of others who played the demo and decided the full version was n't worth it ( maybe when it cost $ 15.00 or so ) .I will occasionally download pirated software .
This is generally software or music that I really do n't value or only need to use once , and really does n't hold enough value to me to justify paying the full price .
These are foundational principles of economics.I am also the type of person who will decide I need a particular product , pick a few models and wait until I find one in my price range , or wait for prices to drop if I do n't value it at it 's current price ( I 'm still waiting on a logitech z 5500 to go down in price ) .I could be wrong , but I think these are reasonable practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The World of Goo payment experiment did not demonstrate that customers in general will pay far less than a product is worth.
It just showed that customers will pay the value of a particular product to them.
The World of Goo had been on sale for a long time prior to this experiment.
Many people purchased the game previously at other set prices--those people that saw that product to them as being more valuable.
I'm sure there were also a fair number of others who played the demo and decided the full version wasn't worth it (maybe when it cost $15.00 or so).I will occasionally download pirated software.
This is generally software or music that I really don't value or only need to use once, and really doesn't hold enough value to me to justify paying the full price.
These are foundational principles of economics.I am also the type of person who will decide I need a particular product, pick a few models and wait until I find one in my price range, or  wait for prices to drop if I don't value it at it's current price (I'm still waiting on a logitech z 5500 to go down in price).I could be wrong, but I think these are reasonable practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30020204</id>
	<title>Hello shareholders! Time to change management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A similar lethargy in adapting to new market realities has cost the established record industry massively. If you hear your management talking utter nonsense like this, you know its time to have them removed before they do any further damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A similar lethargy in adapting to new market realities has cost the established record industry massively .
If you hear your management talking utter nonsense like this , you know its time to have them removed before they do any further damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A similar lethargy in adapting to new market realities has cost the established record industry massively.
If you hear your management talking utter nonsense like this, you know its time to have them removed before they do any further damage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...if all they're showing are Gilligan's Island reruns</i></p><p>I'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot". Something darker and edgy. Too bad Chris Farley is dead, he would have made an awesome, cocaine addicted Skipper. I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if all they 're showing are Gilligan 's Island rerunsI 'm hoping for a Gilligan 's Island " reboot " .
Something darker and edgy .
Too bad Chris Farley is dead , he would have made an awesome , cocaine addicted Skipper .
I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable , because I believe great art should be a labor of love , unsullied by commercial interests : -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...if all they're showing are Gilligan's Island rerunsI'm hoping for a Gilligan's Island "reboot".
Something darker and edgy.
Too bad Chris Farley is dead, he would have made an awesome, cocaine addicted Skipper.
I would still download torrents of it instead of paying for cable, because I believe great art should be a labor of love, unsullied by commercial interests :-D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008512</id>
	<title>Something else the industry should consider:</title>
	<author>BlankStare</author>
	<datestamp>1257540120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I respect and comply with copyright laws, and I believe that the artist and the industries that distribute their works deserve to receive their wages.  That said, the draconian measures that the RIAA camp have resorted to in recent days may well put them out of business.

I have begun to feel of late that continuing to purchase ANY media that MIGHT be duplicated or retained too long may expose me to undue risk of litigation, even if I have done no wrong.  I do not NEED to be entertained, I simply enjoy it and I can live just fine without their products if that risk becomes too excessive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I respect and comply with copyright laws , and I believe that the artist and the industries that distribute their works deserve to receive their wages .
That said , the draconian measures that the RIAA camp have resorted to in recent days may well put them out of business .
I have begun to feel of late that continuing to purchase ANY media that MIGHT be duplicated or retained too long may expose me to undue risk of litigation , even if I have done no wrong .
I do not NEED to be entertained , I simply enjoy it and I can live just fine without their products if that risk becomes too excessive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I respect and comply with copyright laws, and I believe that the artist and the industries that distribute their works deserve to receive their wages.
That said, the draconian measures that the RIAA camp have resorted to in recent days may well put them out of business.
I have begun to feel of late that continuing to purchase ANY media that MIGHT be duplicated or retained too long may expose me to undue risk of litigation, even if I have done no wrong.
I do not NEED to be entertained, I simply enjoy it and I can live just fine without their products if that risk becomes too excessive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009710</id>
	<title>Coded Language -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257501960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We must make the web subscription-based. No sites should be allowed to host content unless we can profit from it again and again!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We must make the web subscription-based .
No sites should be allowed to host content unless we can profit from it again and again !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We must make the web subscription-based.
No sites should be allowed to host content unless we can profit from it again and again!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009790</id>
	<title>Pirating is ethical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257502260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Ok.  Now that we've established that I'm not buying it, <em>there</em> is the ethical excuse for pirating it: it's <strong>victimless</strong>.
</p><p>
Unlike the music industry which sells un-DRMed CDs, the movie guys refuse to accept my money in exchange for an mplayer-compatible (i.e. un-DRMed) file, so I didn't pay them anything, and I obtained the playable file from pirates.  No loss to the seller, since they weren't selling.  If the stockholders feel there's a loss, then they need to ask the management why they aren't selling playable files.
</p><p>
If you're going to start making statements about "There's no ethical excuse for.." then the first person who has some explaining to do, are the people who are in charge of making profits on behalf of the owners, failing to run a content-sales business.  There's no ethical excuse for telling customers "fuck you, we don't want your money" and then failing to resign the next time the owners write you a paycheck.
</p><p>
WTF is the point of copyright, if the holder won't distribute the content?  The point of the monopoly is for them to sell it.  If they don't sell it, then the <em>reason</em> copyright law exists, has been subverted.  <strong>When that happens, there's no ethical prohibition against piracy.</strong></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
Ok. Now that we 've established that I 'm not buying it , there is the ethical excuse for pirating it : it 's victimless .
Unlike the music industry which sells un-DRMed CDs , the movie guys refuse to accept my money in exchange for an mplayer-compatible ( i.e .
un-DRMed ) file , so I did n't pay them anything , and I obtained the playable file from pirates .
No loss to the seller , since they were n't selling .
If the stockholders feel there 's a loss , then they need to ask the management why they are n't selling playable files .
If you 're going to start making statements about " There 's no ethical excuse for.. " then the first person who has some explaining to do , are the people who are in charge of making profits on behalf of the owners , failing to run a content-sales business .
There 's no ethical excuse for telling customers " fuck you , we do n't want your money " and then failing to resign the next time the owners write you a paycheck .
WTF is the point of copyright , if the holder wo n't distribute the content ?
The point of the monopoly is for them to sell it .
If they do n't sell it , then the reason copyright law exists , has been subverted .
When that happens , there 's no ethical prohibition against piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
Ok.  Now that we've established that I'm not buying it, there is the ethical excuse for pirating it: it's victimless.
Unlike the music industry which sells un-DRMed CDs, the movie guys refuse to accept my money in exchange for an mplayer-compatible (i.e.
un-DRMed) file, so I didn't pay them anything, and I obtained the playable file from pirates.
No loss to the seller, since they weren't selling.
If the stockholders feel there's a loss, then they need to ask the management why they aren't selling playable files.
If you're going to start making statements about "There's no ethical excuse for.." then the first person who has some explaining to do, are the people who are in charge of making profits on behalf of the owners, failing to run a content-sales business.
There's no ethical excuse for telling customers "fuck you, we don't want your money" and then failing to resign the next time the owners write you a paycheck.
WTF is the point of copyright, if the holder won't distribute the content?
The point of the monopoly is for them to sell it.
If they don't sell it, then the reason copyright law exists, has been subverted.
When that happens, there's no ethical prohibition against piracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009872</id>
	<title>Good news for strippers everywhere!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1257502560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need to get breast implants -- just retrain your customers to prefer smaller breasts!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need to get breast implants -- just retrain your customers to prefer smaller breasts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need to get breast implants -- just retrain your customers to prefer smaller breasts!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010046</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257503340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The only thing that hasn't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $0</i></p><p>Before the internet I spent my whole life getting content for $0. TV was free (there was no cable). Radio was (and still is) free. I'd get <a href="http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/4/29/182214/907" title="kuro5hin.org">whole albums for free from KSHE</a> [kuro5hin.org] on cassette every Sunday night; seven of them per week. I got Ted Nugent's <i>Stranglehold</i> a week before the LP was in the stores. We'd borrow friends' LPs and tape them, and it was not only free but legal to boot.</p><p>When cable and VCRs came along I'd get copies of movies for free (well, plus the price of a blank tape, but today that equates to paying for a hard drive or blank DVDs).</p><p>When cable first came out, nobody wanted to sign up. "Ten bucks a month to watch TV? Are they crazy"? But there was value added: cable channels weren't censored, and there were no commercials on them. The only commercials were on the broadcast stations.</p><p>In a capitalist economy your business has to meet the customers' demands, or you won't have any customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing that has n't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $ 0Before the internet I spent my whole life getting content for $ 0 .
TV was free ( there was no cable ) .
Radio was ( and still is ) free .
I 'd get whole albums for free from KSHE [ kuro5hin.org ] on cassette every Sunday night ; seven of them per week .
I got Ted Nugent 's Stranglehold a week before the LP was in the stores .
We 'd borrow friends ' LPs and tape them , and it was not only free but legal to boot.When cable and VCRs came along I 'd get copies of movies for free ( well , plus the price of a blank tape , but today that equates to paying for a hard drive or blank DVDs ) .When cable first came out , nobody wanted to sign up .
" Ten bucks a month to watch TV ?
Are they crazy " ?
But there was value added : cable channels were n't censored , and there were no commercials on them .
The only commercials were on the broadcast stations.In a capitalist economy your business has to meet the customers ' demands , or you wo n't have any customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing that hasn't happened is content creators giving away stuff for $0Before the internet I spent my whole life getting content for $0.
TV was free (there was no cable).
Radio was (and still is) free.
I'd get whole albums for free from KSHE [kuro5hin.org] on cassette every Sunday night; seven of them per week.
I got Ted Nugent's Stranglehold a week before the LP was in the stores.
We'd borrow friends' LPs and tape them, and it was not only free but legal to boot.When cable and VCRs came along I'd get copies of movies for free (well, plus the price of a blank tape, but today that equates to paying for a hard drive or blank DVDs).When cable first came out, nobody wanted to sign up.
"Ten bucks a month to watch TV?
Are they crazy"?
But there was value added: cable channels weren't censored, and there were no commercials on them.
The only commercials were on the broadcast stations.In a capitalist economy your business has to meet the customers' demands, or you won't have any customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009392</id>
	<title>doth protest etc.etc.</title>
	<author>blair1q</author>
	<datestamp>1257500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your cable company will sell you a DVR, but it doesn't want you to have a copy of anything?</p><p>An entire generation of CEOs has grown up believing utter nonsense about the relative values of money and freedom.</p><p>Apparently, several trillion dollars in collapsed economy hasn't improved their common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cable company will sell you a DVR , but it does n't want you to have a copy of anything ? An entire generation of CEOs has grown up believing utter nonsense about the relative values of money and freedom.Apparently , several trillion dollars in collapsed economy has n't improved their common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cable company will sell you a DVR, but it doesn't want you to have a copy of anything?An entire generation of CEOs has grown up believing utter nonsense about the relative values of money and freedom.Apparently, several trillion dollars in collapsed economy hasn't improved their common sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008614</id>
	<title>Hey Comcrap</title>
	<author>chucklebutte</author>
	<datestamp>1257540540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a spoon and eat my ass with it! I am a Pirate! In the past 15 years I have shown as many people as possible how to copy their shit, where to download shit at, etc etc.

I was fed up 15 years ago being bullied around by these big companies, they have no respect for us, so why should we respect them?

All my family pirates now and so do my friends, hell even my grandpa asks me to burn him cd's and movies. Why? Because they dont understand why when they buy something they cant do whatever they want to it.

Like put their DVD's to VHS cause old folks arent too keen on DVD's, or why my siblings cant mod their ps2, they bought it, they can mod and trick out their car but not their video game system?

Why is DVR such a problem? If any of you here could wrap your head around the amount of TV my mother watches its sickening but yet they wanna take her DVR from her, I guess she will have to download them from now on.

And dont get me started on how shitty the entire entertainment business has been for over 10 years now. The rising costs of movie theaters for what you get is not worth it, hell 99\% of the movies that come out that I download arent worth the bandwidth wasted.

Look big wig ceo dumb dumbs, we dont want your shit that you try to shovel down our throats, you push us we rebel, so think twice before you do, and even then think two more times!

Do they teach history anymore? Does anyone remember why this country was established? People seriously need to suit up and boot up get some heaters and take our country back! For christ sakes we out number them, we couldnt be stopped if we stood up, people grow some balls here!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a spoon and eat my ass with it !
I am a Pirate !
In the past 15 years I have shown as many people as possible how to copy their shit , where to download shit at , etc etc .
I was fed up 15 years ago being bullied around by these big companies , they have no respect for us , so why should we respect them ?
All my family pirates now and so do my friends , hell even my grandpa asks me to burn him cd 's and movies .
Why ? Because they dont understand why when they buy something they cant do whatever they want to it .
Like put their DVD 's to VHS cause old folks arent too keen on DVD 's , or why my siblings cant mod their ps2 , they bought it , they can mod and trick out their car but not their video game system ?
Why is DVR such a problem ?
If any of you here could wrap your head around the amount of TV my mother watches its sickening but yet they wan na take her DVR from her , I guess she will have to download them from now on .
And dont get me started on how shitty the entire entertainment business has been for over 10 years now .
The rising costs of movie theaters for what you get is not worth it , hell 99 \ % of the movies that come out that I download arent worth the bandwidth wasted .
Look big wig ceo dumb dumbs , we dont want your shit that you try to shovel down our throats , you push us we rebel , so think twice before you do , and even then think two more times !
Do they teach history anymore ?
Does anyone remember why this country was established ?
People seriously need to suit up and boot up get some heaters and take our country back !
For christ sakes we out number them , we couldnt be stopped if we stood up , people grow some balls here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a spoon and eat my ass with it!
I am a Pirate!
In the past 15 years I have shown as many people as possible how to copy their shit, where to download shit at, etc etc.
I was fed up 15 years ago being bullied around by these big companies, they have no respect for us, so why should we respect them?
All my family pirates now and so do my friends, hell even my grandpa asks me to burn him cd's and movies.
Why? Because they dont understand why when they buy something they cant do whatever they want to it.
Like put their DVD's to VHS cause old folks arent too keen on DVD's, or why my siblings cant mod their ps2, they bought it, they can mod and trick out their car but not their video game system?
Why is DVR such a problem?
If any of you here could wrap your head around the amount of TV my mother watches its sickening but yet they wanna take her DVR from her, I guess she will have to download them from now on.
And dont get me started on how shitty the entire entertainment business has been for over 10 years now.
The rising costs of movie theaters for what you get is not worth it, hell 99\% of the movies that come out that I download arent worth the bandwidth wasted.
Look big wig ceo dumb dumbs, we dont want your shit that you try to shovel down our throats, you push us we rebel, so think twice before you do, and even then think two more times!
Do they teach history anymore?
Does anyone remember why this country was established?
People seriously need to suit up and boot up get some heaters and take our country back!
For christ sakes we out number them, we couldnt be stopped if we stood up, people grow some balls here!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009416</id>
	<title>Too late</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1257500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already cut the cord.  And no downloading (legal or otherwise) was responsible.  Why?  I realized that every show I watched was on the broadcast channels.  So why pay $50/month (up to $60 now) for the broadcast channels (available over the air), plus a load of cable channels with nothing I watched on them.  There's some good shows on the premium channels, but those few I can get later on a (rented) DVD, at far lower cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already cut the cord .
And no downloading ( legal or otherwise ) was responsible .
Why ? I realized that every show I watched was on the broadcast channels .
So why pay $ 50/month ( up to $ 60 now ) for the broadcast channels ( available over the air ) , plus a load of cable channels with nothing I watched on them .
There 's some good shows on the premium channels , but those few I can get later on a ( rented ) DVD , at far lower cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already cut the cord.
And no downloading (legal or otherwise) was responsible.
Why?  I realized that every show I watched was on the broadcast channels.
So why pay $50/month (up to $60 now) for the broadcast channels (available over the air), plus a load of cable channels with nothing I watched on them.
There's some good shows on the premium channels, but those few I can get later on a (rented) DVD, at far lower cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008344</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>DAldredge</author>
	<datestamp>1257539280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because buying a CD for 7.99 is too much to ask.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because buying a CD for 7.99 is too much to ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because buying a CD for 7.99 is too much to ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</id>
	<title>It's both</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1257537780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay for, instead of putting out remakes and rehashes on a regular basis (i.e. Fark's "In yet another sign that Hollywood has truly run out of new ideas...")
</p><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.  If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.  It's quite simple.
</p><p>I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.
</p><p>Have fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , yes , media companies ( and indies , etc ) should develop things that people are willing to pay for , instead of putting out remakes and rehashes on a regular basis ( i.e .
Fark 's " In yet another sign that Hollywood has truly run out of new ideas... " ) On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simple .
I now expect 4 dozen posts , making car analogies , expounding on the " false " argument of lost sales , and pointing out that I 'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill .
Have fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay for, instead of putting out remakes and rehashes on a regular basis (i.e.
Fark's "In yet another sign that Hollywood has truly run out of new ideas...")
On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simple.
I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.
Have fun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008422</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on what the content is. Let's say I like "Weird Al" Yankovic tunes. Or at least some of them. The guy really has true talent to the point that sometimes his parodies are better than the originals. I have absolutely no problem buying his tunes at $0.99 each or even cheaper if I buy the whole album.</p><p>TV shows, on the other hand, are transmitted through the airs for free, you just need an antenna. But you also need to live somewhere that gets reached by those signals. I'm just using the internet to simulate over-the-air reception. There is no ads in the DIVX files, but then again if I watched it live I would go to the bathroom or fetch a snack during the commercials, so one way or the other I'm not going to see them.</p><p>Movies? Cheaper to wait the DVD release and simply rent them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on what the content is .
Let 's say I like " Weird Al " Yankovic tunes .
Or at least some of them .
The guy really has true talent to the point that sometimes his parodies are better than the originals .
I have absolutely no problem buying his tunes at $ 0.99 each or even cheaper if I buy the whole album.TV shows , on the other hand , are transmitted through the airs for free , you just need an antenna .
But you also need to live somewhere that gets reached by those signals .
I 'm just using the internet to simulate over-the-air reception .
There is no ads in the DIVX files , but then again if I watched it live I would go to the bathroom or fetch a snack during the commercials , so one way or the other I 'm not going to see them.Movies ?
Cheaper to wait the DVD release and simply rent them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on what the content is.
Let's say I like "Weird Al" Yankovic tunes.
Or at least some of them.
The guy really has true talent to the point that sometimes his parodies are better than the originals.
I have absolutely no problem buying his tunes at $0.99 each or even cheaper if I buy the whole album.TV shows, on the other hand, are transmitted through the airs for free, you just need an antenna.
But you also need to live somewhere that gets reached by those signals.
I'm just using the internet to simulate over-the-air reception.
There is no ads in the DIVX files, but then again if I watched it live I would go to the bathroom or fetch a snack during the commercials, so one way or the other I'm not going to see them.Movies?
Cheaper to wait the DVD release and simply rent them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008264</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Mr\_eX9</author>
	<datestamp>1257538920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it. If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it. It's quite simple.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I think you meant to say "don't bother with it" rather than "don't buy it."</p><p>By extension, if you're not willing to pay the price i.e. you don't value the item in question all that much, is it really worth your time at all? I tend to think the answer is no.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simple .
I think you meant to say " do n't bother with it " rather than " do n't buy it .
" By extension , if you 're not willing to pay the price i.e .
you do n't value the item in question all that much , is it really worth your time at all ?
I tend to think the answer is no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simple.
I think you meant to say "don't bother with it" rather than "don't buy it.
"By extension, if you're not willing to pay the price i.e.
you don't value the item in question all that much, is it really worth your time at all?
I tend to think the answer is no.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034</id>
	<title>Might I be the first</title>
	<author>ericrost</author>
	<datestamp>1257537840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might I be the first to give a gigantic "Whoosh!" in Comcast's general direction. I cut that cord a few years ago and with the help of MythTV, Boxee, Hauppage, Turtle Beach, Netflix, and Xbox Live have never looked back for a second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might I be the first to give a gigantic " Whoosh !
" in Comcast 's general direction .
I cut that cord a few years ago and with the help of MythTV , Boxee , Hauppage , Turtle Beach , Netflix , and Xbox Live have never looked back for a second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might I be the first to give a gigantic "Whoosh!
" in Comcast's general direction.
I cut that cord a few years ago and with the help of MythTV, Boxee, Hauppage, Turtle Beach, Netflix, and Xbox Live have never looked back for a second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008770</id>
	<title>If it doesn't feel that illegal, people don't care</title>
	<author>fractalboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257541080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fundamental problem with many "digital things" (like in this case, music and video files) is that there is a huge disconnect between their expected real-world analogs and the actual laws (both physical and legal) governing the digital-world in which they exist.<br> <br>

The fundamental technical know-how to write programs from scratch to make high-quality copies of media files is really pretty rare.  Just the same way that say actually painting an excellent replica of a Rembrandt is something that very few people can do.  The main difference is that once someone writes a program to copy media files (which may even be a perfectly legal commercial piece of software to begin with) the dissemination of such a program is absolutely trivial.  Teaching the population how to paint stunning rip-offs of Rembrandts isn't just not trivial, it's impossible.<br> <br>

Yes, a few people talk of the myths of lost sales and such, but honestly that's all retrospective crap.<br> <br>

The truth is that psychologically, if you can do something with a couple clicks of a button while you sit at home eating potato chips in your living room, it doesn't feel that illegal, regardless of what the law is or isn't.<br> <br>

I'll even make a car analogy.  Say that my mother holds the law in very high regard, even when it comes to piracy.  If I go and visit her in a stolen car, she will at minimum yell at me quite profusely, and it wouldn't be unforeseeable that she might call the authorities.  But if we go for a drive (in my own un-stolen car) and listen to things from my MP3 player, she wouldn't even think to ask if the music was procured legally.  If I told her that it was all downloaded illegally, she may tell me that it isn't right, but she's still probably going to be listening to the music, and there's also no way she's reporting the illegal downloads to any authority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem with many " digital things " ( like in this case , music and video files ) is that there is a huge disconnect between their expected real-world analogs and the actual laws ( both physical and legal ) governing the digital-world in which they exist .
The fundamental technical know-how to write programs from scratch to make high-quality copies of media files is really pretty rare .
Just the same way that say actually painting an excellent replica of a Rembrandt is something that very few people can do .
The main difference is that once someone writes a program to copy media files ( which may even be a perfectly legal commercial piece of software to begin with ) the dissemination of such a program is absolutely trivial .
Teaching the population how to paint stunning rip-offs of Rembrandts is n't just not trivial , it 's impossible .
Yes , a few people talk of the myths of lost sales and such , but honestly that 's all retrospective crap .
The truth is that psychologically , if you can do something with a couple clicks of a button while you sit at home eating potato chips in your living room , it does n't feel that illegal , regardless of what the law is or is n't .
I 'll even make a car analogy .
Say that my mother holds the law in very high regard , even when it comes to piracy .
If I go and visit her in a stolen car , she will at minimum yell at me quite profusely , and it would n't be unforeseeable that she might call the authorities .
But if we go for a drive ( in my own un-stolen car ) and listen to things from my MP3 player , she would n't even think to ask if the music was procured legally .
If I told her that it was all downloaded illegally , she may tell me that it is n't right , but she 's still probably going to be listening to the music , and there 's also no way she 's reporting the illegal downloads to any authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem with many "digital things" (like in this case, music and video files) is that there is a huge disconnect between their expected real-world analogs and the actual laws (both physical and legal) governing the digital-world in which they exist.
The fundamental technical know-how to write programs from scratch to make high-quality copies of media files is really pretty rare.
Just the same way that say actually painting an excellent replica of a Rembrandt is something that very few people can do.
The main difference is that once someone writes a program to copy media files (which may even be a perfectly legal commercial piece of software to begin with) the dissemination of such a program is absolutely trivial.
Teaching the population how to paint stunning rip-offs of Rembrandts isn't just not trivial, it's impossible.
Yes, a few people talk of the myths of lost sales and such, but honestly that's all retrospective crap.
The truth is that psychologically, if you can do something with a couple clicks of a button while you sit at home eating potato chips in your living room, it doesn't feel that illegal, regardless of what the law is or isn't.
I'll even make a car analogy.
Say that my mother holds the law in very high regard, even when it comes to piracy.
If I go and visit her in a stolen car, she will at minimum yell at me quite profusely, and it wouldn't be unforeseeable that she might call the authorities.
But if we go for a drive (in my own un-stolen car) and listen to things from my MP3 player, she wouldn't even think to ask if the music was procured legally.
If I told her that it was all downloaded illegally, she may tell me that it isn't right, but she's still probably going to be listening to the music, and there's also no way she's reporting the illegal downloads to any authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009518</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1257501060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it. It's quite simple.</p></div><p>So that's why I didn't buy it, I torrented it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something</p></div><p>How about that copyright is fundamentally immoral and unconstitutional (i.e. "limited times")? So not only is breaking copyright law not morally wrong, but I'd say it's even our duty as citizens to violate copyright as an act of civil disobedience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simple.So that 's why I did n't buy it , I torrented it .
: - ) On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating somethingHow about that copyright is fundamentally immoral and unconstitutional ( i.e .
" limited times " ) ?
So not only is breaking copyright law not morally wrong , but I 'd say it 's even our duty as citizens to violate copyright as an act of civil disobedience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simple.So that's why I didn't buy it, I torrented it.
:-)On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating somethingHow about that copyright is fundamentally immoral and unconstitutional (i.e.
"limited times")?
So not only is breaking copyright law not morally wrong, but I'd say it's even our duty as citizens to violate copyright as an act of civil disobedience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008196</id>
	<title>Re:Might I be the first</title>
	<author>Neutral\_Observer</author>
	<datestamp>1257538560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this is why they implemented throttling on the INet connections.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why they implemented throttling on the INet connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why they implemented throttling on the INet connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008114</id>
	<title>Compromise</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1257538260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order for me to get everything I want you're going to have to make some changes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for me to get everything I want you 're going to have to make some changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for me to get everything I want you're going to have to make some changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008100</id>
	<title>He Gets it!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make something the consumers want to pay for !!! THANK YOU...</p><p>I bought Oblivion because it was worth it. I purchased HL2 and all its episodes because.. yeah.. it was worth it... Operation Flashpoint, yep.. really good...</p><p>Then, there is all this garbage being created.. Music wise.. Beyonce: Put a ring on it.. One of the dumbest songs to ever exist, what was she on when she wrote it? People, and companies are becoming brands.. some people fall for the crap they produce, but the smarter population tries before they buy. If it truly is worth it, they will pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make something the consumers want to pay for ! ! !
THANK YOU...I bought Oblivion because it was worth it .
I purchased HL2 and all its episodes because.. yeah.. it was worth it... Operation Flashpoint , yep.. really good...Then , there is all this garbage being created.. Music wise.. Beyonce : Put a ring on it.. One of the dumbest songs to ever exist , what was she on when she wrote it ?
People , and companies are becoming brands.. some people fall for the crap they produce , but the smarter population tries before they buy .
If it truly is worth it , they will pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make something the consumers want to pay for !!!
THANK YOU...I bought Oblivion because it was worth it.
I purchased HL2 and all its episodes because.. yeah.. it was worth it... Operation Flashpoint, yep.. really good...Then, there is all this garbage being created.. Music wise.. Beyonce: Put a ring on it.. One of the dumbest songs to ever exist, what was she on when she wrote it?
People, and companies are becoming brands.. some people fall for the crap they produce, but the smarter population tries before they buy.
If it truly is worth it, they will pay for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008216</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new</title>
	<author>Captain Centropyge</author>
	<datestamp>1257538680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem these execs have is this:  They're not trying to get you to buy their product.  They're trying to STOP you from taking it in any form you want.  Good luck there...  people always find a way to take it anyway.  Same thing with music and DRM, movies and DRM, software, etc.<br> <br>

What they don't see is that, if you let people copy, download, and watch the programming when they want, they'll have a great business going..  As I mentioned down a little farther, if they keep fighting the people, it'll just get worse.  Try to fit the niche, don't try to force people into what you think that niche should be.  Square peg, round hole and all that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem these execs have is this : They 're not trying to get you to buy their product .
They 're trying to STOP you from taking it in any form you want .
Good luck there... people always find a way to take it anyway .
Same thing with music and DRM , movies and DRM , software , etc .
What they do n't see is that , if you let people copy , download , and watch the programming when they want , they 'll have a great business going.. As I mentioned down a little farther , if they keep fighting the people , it 'll just get worse .
Try to fit the niche , do n't try to force people into what you think that niche should be .
Square peg , round hole and all that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem these execs have is this:  They're not trying to get you to buy their product.
They're trying to STOP you from taking it in any form you want.
Good luck there...  people always find a way to take it anyway.
Same thing with music and DRM, movies and DRM, software, etc.
What they don't see is that, if you let people copy, download, and watch the programming when they want, they'll have a great business going..  As I mentioned down a little farther, if they keep fighting the people, it'll just get worse.
Try to fit the niche, don't try to force people into what you think that niche should be.
Square peg, round hole and all that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008398</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257539460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one is <i>entitled</i> to violate copyrights because they disagree with the business model. They are entitled to simple abstain from buying (and therefore owning) the content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is entitled to violate copyrights because they disagree with the business model .
They are entitled to simple abstain from buying ( and therefore owning ) the content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is entitled to violate copyrights because they disagree with the business model.
They are entitled to simple abstain from buying (and therefore owning) the content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008838</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257498180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would like to see is quality programming  (which almost doesn't exist today), and reasonable prices for Cable TV, cable internet etc...instead of the garbage thats on TV.  There is now more time (per hour) of commercials than TV show.  In many markets there is only ONE cable provider, so they are able to price gouge the shit out of their customers.</p><p>While I do have cable internet, I have not had cable TV for years.  I rent and buy DVDs instead.  I get to watch what I want, when I want, and best of all...NO comercials!  I am paying $45/month for a 3MB internet connection, because there is no competition in my area.  I should be paying no more than $25/month for an 8 to 10MB connection. The only other options here are Qwest DSL (much slower and crappy service) or dial-up.</p><p>What is really needed is for the MPAA/RIAA assholes to realize that their ancient, outmoded business model just doesn't work, and to give peopole what they want.  Quality programming/music at reasonable prices.  And the cable companies need to realize that they cannot keep price gouging customers.  What is really needed are ways to force cable companies to allow competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like to see is quality programming ( which almost does n't exist today ) , and reasonable prices for Cable TV , cable internet etc...instead of the garbage thats on TV .
There is now more time ( per hour ) of commercials than TV show .
In many markets there is only ONE cable provider , so they are able to price gouge the shit out of their customers.While I do have cable internet , I have not had cable TV for years .
I rent and buy DVDs instead .
I get to watch what I want , when I want , and best of all...NO comercials !
I am paying $ 45/month for a 3MB internet connection , because there is no competition in my area .
I should be paying no more than $ 25/month for an 8 to 10MB connection .
The only other options here are Qwest DSL ( much slower and crappy service ) or dial-up.What is really needed is for the MPAA/RIAA assholes to realize that their ancient , outmoded business model just does n't work , and to give peopole what they want .
Quality programming/music at reasonable prices .
And the cable companies need to realize that they can not keep price gouging customers .
What is really needed are ways to force cable companies to allow competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like to see is quality programming  (which almost doesn't exist today), and reasonable prices for Cable TV, cable internet etc...instead of the garbage thats on TV.
There is now more time (per hour) of commercials than TV show.
In many markets there is only ONE cable provider, so they are able to price gouge the shit out of their customers.While I do have cable internet, I have not had cable TV for years.
I rent and buy DVDs instead.
I get to watch what I want, when I want, and best of all...NO comercials!
I am paying $45/month for a 3MB internet connection, because there is no competition in my area.
I should be paying no more than $25/month for an 8 to 10MB connection.
The only other options here are Qwest DSL (much slower and crappy service) or dial-up.What is really needed is for the MPAA/RIAA assholes to realize that their ancient, outmoded business model just doesn't work, and to give peopole what they want.
Quality programming/music at reasonable prices.
And the cable companies need to realize that they cannot keep price gouging customers.
What is really needed are ways to force cable companies to allow competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008564</id>
	<title>I'm just a touch older, and we don't do it either.</title>
	<author>DRAGONWEEZEL</author>
	<datestamp>1257540300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch TV that is.  Exceptions:  Jay Leno, and 11:00 news (Sometimes).  We are in the 30-35 bracket but have had a fair amount of disposable income, but we dispose of it into savings and our home instead.  We still have TV, we even have limited cable, but I can't stand it.</p><p>We get all our other video entertainment from Blockbuster, Hulu, or Steam.  I just plug my laptop into the TV and away we go!</p><p>Otherwise, it's working on the house, doing things fun w/ our time (I fly R/C, she likes to decorate), I play vids, she shops for our next vacation, we both love going places, Sometimes we even like being w/ other (gasp!!!) PEOPLE.</p><p>It's exciting because we don't feel "tied" to a show (gotta be home by 8 on Monday to watch Heroes?? Gimme a break, that's pretty damn lame.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch TV that is .
Exceptions : Jay Leno , and 11 : 00 news ( Sometimes ) .
We are in the 30-35 bracket but have had a fair amount of disposable income , but we dispose of it into savings and our home instead .
We still have TV , we even have limited cable , but I ca n't stand it.We get all our other video entertainment from Blockbuster , Hulu , or Steam .
I just plug my laptop into the TV and away we go ! Otherwise , it 's working on the house , doing things fun w/ our time ( I fly R/C , she likes to decorate ) , I play vids , she shops for our next vacation , we both love going places , Sometimes we even like being w/ other ( gasp ! ! !
) PEOPLE.It 's exciting because we do n't feel " tied " to a show ( got ta be home by 8 on Monday to watch Heroes ? ?
Gim me a break , that 's pretty damn lame .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch TV that is.
Exceptions:  Jay Leno, and 11:00 news (Sometimes).
We are in the 30-35 bracket but have had a fair amount of disposable income, but we dispose of it into savings and our home instead.
We still have TV, we even have limited cable, but I can't stand it.We get all our other video entertainment from Blockbuster, Hulu, or Steam.
I just plug my laptop into the TV and away we go!Otherwise, it's working on the house, doing things fun w/ our time (I fly R/C, she likes to decorate), I play vids, she shops for our next vacation, we both love going places, Sometimes we even like being w/ other (gasp!!!
) PEOPLE.It's exciting because we don't feel "tied" to a show (gotta be home by 8 on Monday to watch Heroes??
Gimme a break, that's pretty damn lame.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010004</id>
	<title>Consumption</title>
	<author>Zombie\_Magick</author>
	<datestamp>1257503220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand is why they don't realize they've created their own monsters. We've been conditioned to (over) consume. Is it any surprise that when we have the opportunity to get what we want (TV, music, moves) for nothing we take it? Thats what consumers do, take what they want in the least "painful" way possible. Sorry movie, television, and music, this is your mess. We know you're not going to take your ball and go home, time to start looking ahead rather than whining about the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is why they do n't realize they 've created their own monsters .
We 've been conditioned to ( over ) consume .
Is it any surprise that when we have the opportunity to get what we want ( TV , music , moves ) for nothing we take it ?
Thats what consumers do , take what they want in the least " painful " way possible .
Sorry movie , television , and music , this is your mess .
We know you 're not going to take your ball and go home , time to start looking ahead rather than whining about the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is why they don't realize they've created their own monsters.
We've been conditioned to (over) consume.
Is it any surprise that when we have the opportunity to get what we want (TV, music, moves) for nothing we take it?
Thats what consumers do, take what they want in the least "painful" way possible.
Sorry movie, television, and music, this is your mess.
We know you're not going to take your ball and go home, time to start looking ahead rather than whining about the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011120</id>
	<title>Why change the business model, when the consumer i</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1257510240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is called Fascism.</p><p>It is when corporations merge with governments to make laws dictating how much wealth the consumer/citizen shall have.</p><p>So, since this is actually already being legislated, what does that say about the USA form of government?</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called Fascism.It is when corporations merge with governments to make laws dictating how much wealth the consumer/citizen shall have.So , since this is actually already being legislated , what does that say about the USA form of government ? -Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called Fascism.It is when corporations merge with governments to make laws dictating how much wealth the consumer/citizen shall have.So, since this is actually already being legislated, what does that say about the USA form of government?-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30024654</id>
	<title>http://www.squidoo.com/freelance-writing-1</title>
	<author>kingkurtus</author>
	<datestamp>1257671820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a view like that, it makes me wonder how long comcast will be around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a view like that , it makes me wonder how long comcast will be around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a view like that, it makes me wonder how long comcast will be around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009374</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1257500460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>For music this shouldn't be that hard of a problem to solve, as the cost of making music is fairly low.  If you want big salaries for the artists there are still some issues, but at least the problem is in the realms of possibility.</p><p>For movies the problems are much larger, because the costs are a whole lot higher.  You need hundreds of people to make a summer blockbuster, even if you trim out ALL of the fat.  You can't get by on a couple of cents here or there in revenue.</p><p>The situation isn't unlike that faced by drug companies - the pills cost cents to make, but determining of they are safe costs hundreds of millions of dollars, plus lots of waste on stuff that doesn't pan out.</p><p>In a society where the marginal cost of reproduction approaches zero, you need to find new models of paying for the creation of creative works in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.For music this should n't be that hard of a problem to solve , as the cost of making music is fairly low .
If you want big salaries for the artists there are still some issues , but at least the problem is in the realms of possibility.For movies the problems are much larger , because the costs are a whole lot higher .
You need hundreds of people to make a summer blockbuster , even if you trim out ALL of the fat .
You ca n't get by on a couple of cents here or there in revenue.The situation is n't unlike that faced by drug companies - the pills cost cents to make , but determining of they are safe costs hundreds of millions of dollars , plus lots of waste on stuff that does n't pan out.In a society where the marginal cost of reproduction approaches zero , you need to find new models of paying for the creation of creative works in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.For music this shouldn't be that hard of a problem to solve, as the cost of making music is fairly low.
If you want big salaries for the artists there are still some issues, but at least the problem is in the realms of possibility.For movies the problems are much larger, because the costs are a whole lot higher.
You need hundreds of people to make a summer blockbuster, even if you trim out ALL of the fat.
You can't get by on a couple of cents here or there in revenue.The situation isn't unlike that faced by drug companies - the pills cost cents to make, but determining of they are safe costs hundreds of millions of dollars, plus lots of waste on stuff that doesn't pan out.In a society where the marginal cost of reproduction approaches zero, you need to find new models of paying for the creation of creative works in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008130</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.  If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.  It's quite simple.</p></div><p>Yeah, pretty tired of this "it's their fault, they MAKE me steal" crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simple.Yeah , pretty tired of this " it 's their fault , they MAKE me steal " crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simple.Yeah, pretty tired of this "it's their fault, they MAKE me steal" crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008062</id>
	<title>Alright then, I'll change!</title>
	<author>daoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1257538020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright then, I'll change!.  I'll change to a different provider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright then , I 'll change ! .
I 'll change to a different provider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright then, I'll change!.
I'll change to a different provider.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008980</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257498840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something?  You're asserting it's piracy and then asserting that piracy is illegal and unethical--congratulations, how impressive.  Obviously I'm just 'buying' the product fromt he cheapest supplier.  There's no real ethical or legal reason to pay more for something than is necessary.  "Pirates" as you call them, supply a product for the cheapest price.  I'd be a fool not to use their services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something ?
You 're asserting it 's piracy and then asserting that piracy is illegal and unethical--congratulations , how impressive .
Obviously I 'm just 'buying ' the product fromt he cheapest supplier .
There 's no real ethical or legal reason to pay more for something than is necessary .
" Pirates " as you call them , supply a product for the cheapest price .
I 'd be a fool not to use their services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something?
You're asserting it's piracy and then asserting that piracy is illegal and unethical--congratulations, how impressive.
Obviously I'm just 'buying' the product fromt he cheapest supplier.
There's no real ethical or legal reason to pay more for something than is necessary.
"Pirates" as you call them, supply a product for the cheapest price.
I'd be a fool not to use their services.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009398</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I think RIAA and the MPAA should be tossed in a large hole in the ground and buried.</p><p>However, your statement that business has no right to make a profit is not wise.  More important than the missing mythical right to profit is that you have no right to free music, free TV, free movies, and free soft drinks.  And the idea that you will have access to much of any of that if someone is not making money from it is ridiculous.</p><p>None of that stuff has ever been free.  Money has been made (or an attempt made) through advertising.  But you are probably the first to complain when you can't skip an ad, the first to have ad block installed in your browser, and the first to pirate the latest video game.  I hear Cuba has some food ration coupons for you...head South young man.</p><p>For the record, I rarely purchase music CDs (three in the past five years), purchase DVDs only when I know I'll like watch it more than three times and the price is $15, buy paper books out the wazoo but will not touch DRM e-books, will not buy music or anything else that has DRM on it.</p><p>Your last statement is wholly true...but not because they want to make a profit.  It is because they want to make massive profit by lying their asses off and because they want to treat everyone as criminals...by claiming losses in the billions with no evidence and horrible assumptions.  These guys started claiming their sales were off by billions when only six geeks in the world knew what am mp3 was.  They were off by billions, but this was because their product sucked.  Who in her right mind pays $20 for a CD with one halfway decent song and seven auditorially horrifying acoustic pieces of garbage which closely resembles the garbage on any random CD picked out of those made in the last 20 years?</p><p>How do you pay bills around your house?  Maybe you should provide your labor for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think RIAA and the MPAA should be tossed in a large hole in the ground and buried.However , your statement that business has no right to make a profit is not wise .
More important than the missing mythical right to profit is that you have no right to free music , free TV , free movies , and free soft drinks .
And the idea that you will have access to much of any of that if someone is not making money from it is ridiculous.None of that stuff has ever been free .
Money has been made ( or an attempt made ) through advertising .
But you are probably the first to complain when you ca n't skip an ad , the first to have ad block installed in your browser , and the first to pirate the latest video game .
I hear Cuba has some food ration coupons for you...head South young man.For the record , I rarely purchase music CDs ( three in the past five years ) , purchase DVDs only when I know I 'll like watch it more than three times and the price is $ 15 , buy paper books out the wazoo but will not touch DRM e-books , will not buy music or anything else that has DRM on it.Your last statement is wholly true...but not because they want to make a profit .
It is because they want to make massive profit by lying their asses off and because they want to treat everyone as criminals...by claiming losses in the billions with no evidence and horrible assumptions .
These guys started claiming their sales were off by billions when only six geeks in the world knew what am mp3 was .
They were off by billions , but this was because their product sucked .
Who in her right mind pays $ 20 for a CD with one halfway decent song and seven auditorially horrifying acoustic pieces of garbage which closely resembles the garbage on any random CD picked out of those made in the last 20 years ? How do you pay bills around your house ?
Maybe you should provide your labor for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think RIAA and the MPAA should be tossed in a large hole in the ground and buried.However, your statement that business has no right to make a profit is not wise.
More important than the missing mythical right to profit is that you have no right to free music, free TV, free movies, and free soft drinks.
And the idea that you will have access to much of any of that if someone is not making money from it is ridiculous.None of that stuff has ever been free.
Money has been made (or an attempt made) through advertising.
But you are probably the first to complain when you can't skip an ad, the first to have ad block installed in your browser, and the first to pirate the latest video game.
I hear Cuba has some food ration coupons for you...head South young man.For the record, I rarely purchase music CDs (three in the past five years), purchase DVDs only when I know I'll like watch it more than three times and the price is $15, buy paper books out the wazoo but will not touch DRM e-books, will not buy music or anything else that has DRM on it.Your last statement is wholly true...but not because they want to make a profit.
It is because they want to make massive profit by lying their asses off and because they want to treat everyone as criminals...by claiming losses in the billions with no evidence and horrible assumptions.
These guys started claiming their sales were off by billions when only six geeks in the world knew what am mp3 was.
They were off by billions, but this was because their product sucked.
Who in her right mind pays $20 for a CD with one halfway decent song and seven auditorially horrifying acoustic pieces of garbage which closely resembles the garbage on any random CD picked out of those made in the last 20 years?How do you pay bills around your house?
Maybe you should provide your labor for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012622</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257532980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you go on being an obedient stooge.  Someday, you may be grateful some of us aren't willing to just let these media barons steal the public domain.  Disney for instance is more a reteller of existing stories, not a maker of new stories, and they are not shy about that.  But they are one of the very worst at denying stories to others, so much so that the copyright extension act of 1998 is known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.  Hypocrites.  Perhaps they're not too sure of the prowess of their animation, to be so afraid of competition?  Well, we know why.  Greed.  That they can tell these stories of friendship, courage, honesty, generosity, sacrifice, and every other imaginable virtue while themselves exhibiting and practicing none of these in their dealings with intellectual property shows a near unfathomable moral bankruptcy.  If the upper management of Disney, or really, most any corporation, remade A Christmas Carol to fit the way they really think, they'd probably have Scrooge avoid a huge hike in his business's health insurance premiums by manipulating matters so that Tiny Tim is much more likely to succumb to some illness, and when their hopes are realized and he does, end with the Cratchits secretly happy they are no longer burdened with the boy, and Scrooge a hero for pulling it off in such a slick way as he makes a bigger donation to the arts than he would have otherwise.

</p><p>Many works should be in the public domain but aren't thanks to their theft of our culture through legislative fiat.  I'm talking stuff like Winnie the Pooh (copyright 1924-1928, author died in 1956), and Bambi (copyright 1923 in Germany, 1927 in the US, author died in 1945).  That's only the material Disney actually used.   There is far, far more that was caught in the huge dragnet they cast.  Things like the writings of George Orwell, the music of Rachmaninov, Gershwin, and who knows what treasures for which only one copy exists on locked up, deteriorating media that may fail or be lost to fire or accident before their copyright expires.  Copyright is for a limited time, more limited than "forever minus 1 day".

</p><p>I see no ethical problem with anyone doing anything they want with Winnie the Pooh or any other work that would be public domain if not for recent very bad and very unpopular legislation that should never have been allowed, delivers absolutely no benefit to society, and would never have made it into law if the will of the people had been heeded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you go on being an obedient stooge .
Someday , you may be grateful some of us are n't willing to just let these media barons steal the public domain .
Disney for instance is more a reteller of existing stories , not a maker of new stories , and they are not shy about that .
But they are one of the very worst at denying stories to others , so much so that the copyright extension act of 1998 is known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act .
Hypocrites. Perhaps they 're not too sure of the prowess of their animation , to be so afraid of competition ?
Well , we know why .
Greed. That they can tell these stories of friendship , courage , honesty , generosity , sacrifice , and every other imaginable virtue while themselves exhibiting and practicing none of these in their dealings with intellectual property shows a near unfathomable moral bankruptcy .
If the upper management of Disney , or really , most any corporation , remade A Christmas Carol to fit the way they really think , they 'd probably have Scrooge avoid a huge hike in his business 's health insurance premiums by manipulating matters so that Tiny Tim is much more likely to succumb to some illness , and when their hopes are realized and he does , end with the Cratchits secretly happy they are no longer burdened with the boy , and Scrooge a hero for pulling it off in such a slick way as he makes a bigger donation to the arts than he would have otherwise .
Many works should be in the public domain but are n't thanks to their theft of our culture through legislative fiat .
I 'm talking stuff like Winnie the Pooh ( copyright 1924-1928 , author died in 1956 ) , and Bambi ( copyright 1923 in Germany , 1927 in the US , author died in 1945 ) .
That 's only the material Disney actually used .
There is far , far more that was caught in the huge dragnet they cast .
Things like the writings of George Orwell , the music of Rachmaninov , Gershwin , and who knows what treasures for which only one copy exists on locked up , deteriorating media that may fail or be lost to fire or accident before their copyright expires .
Copyright is for a limited time , more limited than " forever minus 1 day " .
I see no ethical problem with anyone doing anything they want with Winnie the Pooh or any other work that would be public domain if not for recent very bad and very unpopular legislation that should never have been allowed , delivers absolutely no benefit to society , and would never have made it into law if the will of the people had been heeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you go on being an obedient stooge.
Someday, you may be grateful some of us aren't willing to just let these media barons steal the public domain.
Disney for instance is more a reteller of existing stories, not a maker of new stories, and they are not shy about that.
But they are one of the very worst at denying stories to others, so much so that the copyright extension act of 1998 is known as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
Hypocrites.  Perhaps they're not too sure of the prowess of their animation, to be so afraid of competition?
Well, we know why.
Greed.  That they can tell these stories of friendship, courage, honesty, generosity, sacrifice, and every other imaginable virtue while themselves exhibiting and practicing none of these in their dealings with intellectual property shows a near unfathomable moral bankruptcy.
If the upper management of Disney, or really, most any corporation, remade A Christmas Carol to fit the way they really think, they'd probably have Scrooge avoid a huge hike in his business's health insurance premiums by manipulating matters so that Tiny Tim is much more likely to succumb to some illness, and when their hopes are realized and he does, end with the Cratchits secretly happy they are no longer burdened with the boy, and Scrooge a hero for pulling it off in such a slick way as he makes a bigger donation to the arts than he would have otherwise.
Many works should be in the public domain but aren't thanks to their theft of our culture through legislative fiat.
I'm talking stuff like Winnie the Pooh (copyright 1924-1928, author died in 1956), and Bambi (copyright 1923 in Germany, 1927 in the US, author died in 1945).
That's only the material Disney actually used.
There is far, far more that was caught in the huge dragnet they cast.
Things like the writings of George Orwell, the music of Rachmaninov, Gershwin, and who knows what treasures for which only one copy exists on locked up, deteriorating media that may fail or be lost to fire or accident before their copyright expires.
Copyright is for a limited time, more limited than "forever minus 1 day".
I see no ethical problem with anyone doing anything they want with Winnie the Pooh or any other work that would be public domain if not for recent very bad and very unpopular legislation that should never have been allowed, delivers absolutely no benefit to society, and would never have made it into law if the will of the people had been heeded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008528</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1257540180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that there's no ethical excuse for pirating something, but that doesn't matter.  Reality is that people DO pirate and will continue to do so forever.  If they do magically manage to eliminate piracy, they are going to see their sales/income drop.  (Unless they start to give away the content so that it's impossible to pirate it effectively, but I'm not really worried that will happen.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that there 's no ethical excuse for pirating something , but that does n't matter .
Reality is that people DO pirate and will continue to do so forever .
If they do magically manage to eliminate piracy , they are going to see their sales/income drop .
( Unless they start to give away the content so that it 's impossible to pirate it effectively , but I 'm not really worried that will happen .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that there's no ethical excuse for pirating something, but that doesn't matter.
Reality is that people DO pirate and will continue to do so forever.
If they do magically manage to eliminate piracy, they are going to see their sales/income drop.
(Unless they start to give away the content so that it's impossible to pirate it effectively, but I'm not really worried that will happen.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009212</id>
	<title>hello media industry</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257499740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>before the internet, you were a necessary evil. someone had to distribute the media, and you needed to be respected in order to provide that service. that portion of copyright law that provided for your protections was valid... then</p><p>you have been replace, by the internet</p><p>authors, musicians, directors: they distribute their media for free. it serves only as advertising for their real source of revenue: ancillary streams like advertising, promotion, concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, specialized content, speaking engagements, movie adaptation deals, etc.</p><p>you are no longer necessary, and the laws that protect you are defunct. the laws that protect you are not pronouncements from god that say the economic model that allowed for your existence is a permanent state of being</p><p>direct artist-consumer links, that is the internet. books, video, music, anything of value that is consumed digitally: its all free. revenue sources are all ancillary streams. ONLY FOR THE ARTIST. NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED, SO NO REVENUE FOR YOU</p><p>YOU ARE EXTINCT AND YOUR LAWS ARE DEFUNCT. DEAL WITH IT. FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>before the internet , you were a necessary evil .
someone had to distribute the media , and you needed to be respected in order to provide that service .
that portion of copyright law that provided for your protections was valid... thenyou have been replace , by the internetauthors , musicians , directors : they distribute their media for free .
it serves only as advertising for their real source of revenue : ancillary streams like advertising , promotion , concerts , the cinema house , pulp copies , specialized content , speaking engagements , movie adaptation deals , etc.you are no longer necessary , and the laws that protect you are defunct .
the laws that protect you are not pronouncements from god that say the economic model that allowed for your existence is a permanent state of beingdirect artist-consumer links , that is the internet .
books , video , music , anything of value that is consumed digitally : its all free .
revenue sources are all ancillary streams .
ONLY FOR THE ARTIST .
NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED , SO NO REVENUE FOR YOUYOU ARE EXTINCT AND YOUR LAWS ARE DEFUNCT .
DEAL WITH IT .
FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>before the internet, you were a necessary evil.
someone had to distribute the media, and you needed to be respected in order to provide that service.
that portion of copyright law that provided for your protections was valid... thenyou have been replace, by the internetauthors, musicians, directors: they distribute their media for free.
it serves only as advertising for their real source of revenue: ancillary streams like advertising, promotion, concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, specialized content, speaking engagements, movie adaptation deals, etc.you are no longer necessary, and the laws that protect you are defunct.
the laws that protect you are not pronouncements from god that say the economic model that allowed for your existence is a permanent state of beingdirect artist-consumer links, that is the internet.
books, video, music, anything of value that is consumed digitally: its all free.
revenue sources are all ancillary streams.
ONLY FOR THE ARTIST.
NO DISTRIBUTOR NEEDED, SO NO REVENUE FOR YOUYOU ARE EXTINCT AND YOUR LAWS ARE DEFUNCT.
DEAL WITH IT.
FUCK OFF AND DIE ALREADY</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009806</id>
	<title>Ignorant summary and editor.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257502320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it. Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "get consumers to change" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand."</p><p>They "Get It" - that despite the deceitful, fraudulent lies by the dishonest Slashdot crowd, it's clear that what customers <b>really</b> want is <b>content that is totally free (as in beer) and accessible at all times everywhere</b>. If the demand is that those who own the content should "cater to the customer" and provide this, and any other sentiment means "not Getting It", I'd say the proponent is staggeringly and disgustingly deceitful.</p><p>Furthermore, there's plenty of areas where "Customers Are Forced To Adapt" and groups that work to "Make Customers Change Rather Than Change Themselves". There's groups that aren't happy about popular sentiment being against gay marriage, doesn't accept that, and work to change it. There's groups that aren't happy about people wanting to buy guns, and wants to change that. In fact, the existence of laws in itself could be seen as "Not Getting It", because if law X that prevents behaviour Y is needed it means that people would undertake action Y, and hence by forcing customers to act differently, they "Aren't Getting It". The proponents of a Dutch weed policy could use exactly the same arguments for legalization of weed as Slashdot Editors use for legalization of downloading, claiming that the illegalizers "Just Don't Get It". A meaningless and ignorant phrase.</p><p>Hence, fuck you for being deceitful, manipulative and hypocritical assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just does n't quite get it .
Comcast 's COO , Steve Burke , recently urged the TV industry to find ways to " get consumers to change " rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand .
" They " Get It " - that despite the deceitful , fraudulent lies by the dishonest Slashdot crowd , it 's clear that what customers really want is content that is totally free ( as in beer ) and accessible at all times everywhere .
If the demand is that those who own the content should " cater to the customer " and provide this , and any other sentiment means " not Getting It " , I 'd say the proponent is staggeringly and disgustingly deceitful.Furthermore , there 's plenty of areas where " Customers Are Forced To Adapt " and groups that work to " Make Customers Change Rather Than Change Themselves " .
There 's groups that are n't happy about popular sentiment being against gay marriage , does n't accept that , and work to change it .
There 's groups that are n't happy about people wanting to buy guns , and wants to change that .
In fact , the existence of laws in itself could be seen as " Not Getting It " , because if law X that prevents behaviour Y is needed it means that people would undertake action Y , and hence by forcing customers to act differently , they " Are n't Getting It " .
The proponents of a Dutch weed policy could use exactly the same arguments for legalization of weed as Slashdot Editors use for legalization of downloading , claiming that the illegalizers " Just Do n't Get It " .
A meaningless and ignorant phrase.Hence , fuck you for being deceitful , manipulative and hypocritical assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Techdirt has pointed out yet another cable exec that just doesn't quite get it.
Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, recently urged the TV industry to find ways to "get consumers to change" rather than figure out better methods to cater to demand.
"They "Get It" - that despite the deceitful, fraudulent lies by the dishonest Slashdot crowd, it's clear that what customers really want is content that is totally free (as in beer) and accessible at all times everywhere.
If the demand is that those who own the content should "cater to the customer" and provide this, and any other sentiment means "not Getting It", I'd say the proponent is staggeringly and disgustingly deceitful.Furthermore, there's plenty of areas where "Customers Are Forced To Adapt" and groups that work to "Make Customers Change Rather Than Change Themselves".
There's groups that aren't happy about popular sentiment being against gay marriage, doesn't accept that, and work to change it.
There's groups that aren't happy about people wanting to buy guns, and wants to change that.
In fact, the existence of laws in itself could be seen as "Not Getting It", because if law X that prevents behaviour Y is needed it means that people would undertake action Y, and hence by forcing customers to act differently, they "Aren't Getting It".
The proponents of a Dutch weed policy could use exactly the same arguments for legalization of weed as Slashdot Editors use for legalization of downloading, claiming that the illegalizers "Just Don't Get It".
A meaningless and ignorant phrase.Hence, fuck you for being deceitful, manipulative and hypocritical assholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009144</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1257499440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> But what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for, say, a movie?</p></div></blockquote><p>Pure self interest.  Paying encourages the people involved to do it again.</p><p>Otherwise, you'd just get freshman/amateur work with the ocaisional OCD writer.</p><p>Although, strictly, you shouldn't pay them as well every time.  Much like mice, people work harder when rewarded semi-frequently but in an irregular fashion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for , say , a movie ? Pure self interest .
Paying encourages the people involved to do it again.Otherwise , you 'd just get freshman/amateur work with the ocaisional OCD writer.Although , strictly , you should n't pay them as well every time .
Much like mice , people work harder when rewarded semi-frequently but in an irregular fashion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for, say, a movie?Pure self interest.
Paying encourages the people involved to do it again.Otherwise, you'd just get freshman/amateur work with the ocaisional OCD writer.Although, strictly, you shouldn't pay them as well every time.
Much like mice, people work harder when rewarded semi-frequently but in an irregular fashion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008164</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they underestimate the ability of aggregate human behavior to be entirely unethical when not properly incentivized<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they underestimate the ability of aggregate human behavior to be entirely unethical when not properly incentivized : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they underestimate the ability of aggregate human behavior to be entirely unethical when not properly incentivized :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008494</id>
	<title>A tale of two Steves...</title>
	<author>gmfeier</author>
	<datestamp>1257540000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>While Steve Burke is trying to figure out how to change consumers' behavior, that other Steve has already showed us that it is possible. I wonder how many users of the original Napster just use iTunes now because it's cheap, easy and safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While Steve Burke is trying to figure out how to change consumers ' behavior , that other Steve has already showed us that it is possible .
I wonder how many users of the original Napster just use iTunes now because it 's cheap , easy and safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While Steve Burke is trying to figure out how to change consumers' behavior, that other Steve has already showed us that it is possible.
I wonder how many users of the original Napster just use iTunes now because it's cheap, easy and safe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009222</id>
	<title>Because PR Costs Less?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1257499800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?</i></p><p>Really? Try working in advertising for a while, it will open your eyes.</p><p>The simple answer is this: Good products cost money, both to develop and to produce. Shoddy products with good PR sell just as well and cost less to produce. Advertising and engineering are both tax deductible at the same rate.</p><p>Plus you get to spend your meetings with pretty people in shiny clothes who love to say "yes" instead of with grumpy engineers who keep saying "that's not possible." Then there are the side benefits of after-hours with pretty co-workers who like to say "yes."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for , rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way ? Really ?
Try working in advertising for a while , it will open your eyes.The simple answer is this : Good products cost money , both to develop and to produce .
Shoddy products with good PR sell just as well and cost less to produce .
Advertising and engineering are both tax deductible at the same rate.Plus you get to spend your meetings with pretty people in shiny clothes who love to say " yes " instead of with grumpy engineers who keep saying " that 's not possible .
" Then there are the side benefits of after-hours with pretty co-workers who like to say " yes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?Really?
Try working in advertising for a while, it will open your eyes.The simple answer is this: Good products cost money, both to develop and to produce.
Shoddy products with good PR sell just as well and cost less to produce.
Advertising and engineering are both tax deductible at the same rate.Plus you get to spend your meetings with pretty people in shiny clothes who love to say "yes" instead of with grumpy engineers who keep saying "that's not possible.
" Then there are the side benefits of after-hours with pretty co-workers who like to say "yes.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30019060</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1257613260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Legalize and regulate marijuana and I'll respect those regulations, otherwise they can fuck off too.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>WTF are these guys smoking, anyway?</p></div><p>Well, if they were hanging out with you we'd know what they were smoking, wouldn't we?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Legalize and regulate marijuana and I 'll respect those regulations , otherwise they can fuck off too.WTF are these guys smoking , anyway ? Well , if they were hanging out with you we 'd know what they were smoking , would n't we ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Legalize and regulate marijuana and I'll respect those regulations, otherwise they can fuck off too.WTF are these guys smoking, anyway?Well, if they were hanging out with you we'd know what they were smoking, wouldn't we?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013940</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257604320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ethical argument for pirating everything:  Copyright a limited monopoly for a limited amount of time to encourage a vibrant public domain.   Berne Convention, Bono Act, DMCA's anticircumvention provisions and takedown provisions = unlimited monopoly for a ridiculous amount of time.    Owning an idea is silly, owning an expression of an idea only works if others can't duplicate that expression or if there is a social contract to allow ownership.  Copyright has been a broken contract for a long time.   Intellectual Property is a lie and a badly told one,  unfortunately the people buying the laws seem to believe in it.</p><p>Unfortunately pirating everything would be a massive pain in the ass so I guess I'll just stick with Itunes cause it provides a service I want at a price I can stand (the content providers / pipe providers would do well to take note of that concept)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ethical argument for pirating everything : Copyright a limited monopoly for a limited amount of time to encourage a vibrant public domain .
Berne Convention , Bono Act , DMCA 's anticircumvention provisions and takedown provisions = unlimited monopoly for a ridiculous amount of time .
Owning an idea is silly , owning an expression of an idea only works if others ca n't duplicate that expression or if there is a social contract to allow ownership .
Copyright has been a broken contract for a long time .
Intellectual Property is a lie and a badly told one , unfortunately the people buying the laws seem to believe in it.Unfortunately pirating everything would be a massive pain in the ass so I guess I 'll just stick with Itunes cause it provides a service I want at a price I can stand ( the content providers / pipe providers would do well to take note of that concept )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ethical argument for pirating everything:  Copyright a limited monopoly for a limited amount of time to encourage a vibrant public domain.
Berne Convention, Bono Act, DMCA's anticircumvention provisions and takedown provisions = unlimited monopoly for a ridiculous amount of time.
Owning an idea is silly, owning an expression of an idea only works if others can't duplicate that expression or if there is a social contract to allow ownership.
Copyright has been a broken contract for a long time.
Intellectual Property is a lie and a badly told one,  unfortunately the people buying the laws seem to believe in it.Unfortunately pirating everything would be a massive pain in the ass so I guess I'll just stick with Itunes cause it provides a service I want at a price I can stand (the content providers / pipe providers would do well to take note of that concept)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008188</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Vlobulle</author>
	<datestamp>1257538560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.</p></div><p>Maybe.</p><p>But we don't really need them, since there are plenty of ethical reasons to pirate something for the very sake of pirating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it.Maybe.But we do n't really need them , since there are plenty of ethical reasons to pirate something for the very sake of pirating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.Maybe.But we don't really need them, since there are plenty of ethical reasons to pirate something for the very sake of pirating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008240</id>
	<title>Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?"</i></p><p>Because he feels the same way you do.  You don't seem at all eager to adapt your behavior to the terms on which products are being marketed.  You instead want to force the providers to change.</p><p>So, you don't want to change, you just want to do things your way and force others to change.  The provider also doesn't want to change.  They want to do things their way and force you to change.</p><p>Both parties want to give little and receive much.  Consumers want to pay little and get lots of high quality content.  Providers want to expend few resources in content provision and receive lots of money.</p><p>I'd say the two groups are more alike than different.  One just has more members than the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for , rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way ?
" Because he feels the same way you do .
You do n't seem at all eager to adapt your behavior to the terms on which products are being marketed .
You instead want to force the providers to change.So , you do n't want to change , you just want to do things your way and force others to change .
The provider also does n't want to change .
They want to do things their way and force you to change.Both parties want to give little and receive much .
Consumers want to pay little and get lots of high quality content .
Providers want to expend few resources in content provision and receive lots of money.I 'd say the two groups are more alike than different .
One just has more members than the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why not just develop products that consumers will willingly pay for, rather than trying to change consumer behavior in such a fundamental way?
"Because he feels the same way you do.
You don't seem at all eager to adapt your behavior to the terms on which products are being marketed.
You instead want to force the providers to change.So, you don't want to change, you just want to do things your way and force others to change.
The provider also doesn't want to change.
They want to do things their way and force you to change.Both parties want to give little and receive much.
Consumers want to pay little and get lots of high quality content.
Providers want to expend few resources in content provision and receive lots of money.I'd say the two groups are more alike than different.
One just has more members than the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30007968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008106</id>
	<title>Because chaning behvior is what they do.</title>
	<author>tail.man</author>
	<datestamp>1257538200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch video here..</p><p>http://informationliberation.com/?id=8339</p><p>"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.</p><p>We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch video here..http : //informationliberation.com/ ? id = 8339 " The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society .
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.We are governed , our minds are molded , our tastes formed , our ideas suggested , largely by men we have never heard of .
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized .
" - Edward Bernays</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch video here..http://informationliberation.com/?id=8339"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.
" - Edward Bernays</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008878</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1257498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>|| An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue.... ||</p><p>Where does "... respects<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... subscription revenue..." fall into or even remotely near respect for copyrights?</p><p>I don't respect the "subscription revenue" thing at all. I stopped watching T.V. at home 10 years ago, don't miss it at all.</p><p>Prior to "killing my T.V.", I had basic cable service, at the time in my area that was 78 channels. I was constantly complaining "there's nothing on". So, when I moved to a new place, had the choice to get a package of cable T.V. plus internet, or just a straight broadband internet line (for cheaper), I nixed the cable.</p><p>I rent movies, when I want, but don't really have time for that as often as I might otherwise like.</p><p>The only subscription I have now is my monthly internet connection. I can follow sports, get my news, etc. with that one connection, no other subscription needed.</p><p>I respect copyrights fully, I do not download any software, music, etc. that I have not purchased and I do not share such downloads with others. I work in the software industry and I know quite a bit about copyright law, fair use, etc., as it is part of what I have to deal with on my job.</p><p>The truth of the matter is for cable companies is: you provide a service that people want, for a good price, with excellent customer service, and people will throw money at you.  Cable companies, in my experience (10 years ago) didn't have what I wanted, was over priced for what I did get and customer service was worse than crap. Maybe the behavior that needs to be changed is that of the, dare I say, cable companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>| | An entire generation is growing up , if we do n't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue.... | | Where does " ... respects ... subscription revenue... " fall into or even remotely near respect for copyrights ? I do n't respect the " subscription revenue " thing at all .
I stopped watching T.V .
at home 10 years ago , do n't miss it at all.Prior to " killing my T.V .
" , I had basic cable service , at the time in my area that was 78 channels .
I was constantly complaining " there 's nothing on " .
So , when I moved to a new place , had the choice to get a package of cable T.V .
plus internet , or just a straight broadband internet line ( for cheaper ) , I nixed the cable.I rent movies , when I want , but do n't really have time for that as often as I might otherwise like.The only subscription I have now is my monthly internet connection .
I can follow sports , get my news , etc .
with that one connection , no other subscription needed.I respect copyrights fully , I do not download any software , music , etc .
that I have not purchased and I do not share such downloads with others .
I work in the software industry and I know quite a bit about copyright law , fair use , etc. , as it is part of what I have to deal with on my job.The truth of the matter is for cable companies is : you provide a service that people want , for a good price , with excellent customer service , and people will throw money at you .
Cable companies , in my experience ( 10 years ago ) did n't have what I wanted , was over priced for what I did get and customer service was worse than crap .
Maybe the behavior that needs to be changed is that of the , dare I say , cable companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>|| An entire generation is growing up, if we don't figure out how to change that behavior so it respects copyright and subscription revenue.... ||Where does "... respects ... subscription revenue..." fall into or even remotely near respect for copyrights?I don't respect the "subscription revenue" thing at all.
I stopped watching T.V.
at home 10 years ago, don't miss it at all.Prior to "killing my T.V.
", I had basic cable service, at the time in my area that was 78 channels.
I was constantly complaining "there's nothing on".
So, when I moved to a new place, had the choice to get a package of cable T.V.
plus internet, or just a straight broadband internet line (for cheaper), I nixed the cable.I rent movies, when I want, but don't really have time for that as often as I might otherwise like.The only subscription I have now is my monthly internet connection.
I can follow sports, get my news, etc.
with that one connection, no other subscription needed.I respect copyrights fully, I do not download any software, music, etc.
that I have not purchased and I do not share such downloads with others.
I work in the software industry and I know quite a bit about copyright law, fair use, etc., as it is part of what I have to deal with on my job.The truth of the matter is for cable companies is: you provide a service that people want, for a good price, with excellent customer service, and people will throw money at you.
Cable companies, in my experience (10 years ago) didn't have what I wanted, was over priced for what I did get and customer service was worse than crap.
Maybe the behavior that needs to be changed is that of the, dare I say, cable companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008080</id>
	<title>He's right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I am sure his comments will get the standard Techdirt drubbing, the reality is that he is correct. It doesn't sound nice to say it, but at this point, the consumers are wrong, and here is why:</p><p>The main focus of your post Mike is the concept of "changing to match what customers want". The reality is that if consumers did not want the programming, that would be a good answer. But it is clear through the actions of many that the programming is valuable and desirable, and people are willing to go a long way to get it, no matter the legality. So you have pirate downloads, trafficked cable boxes, sat signal piracy, people paying for VPNs to be able to do P2P, etc. All of this for what? To get the product that the cable company is selling.</p><p>So "what customers want" is what they are selling. That is established, it's a clear fact.</p><p>So, now "changing to match what customers want", I would have to guess that you are suggesting that the cable companies should drop their subscription model. Perhaps they could run on donations, or perhaps upsell people to dinner with a technician, perhaps selling limited edition "I met the cable company president" t-shirts, or perhaps autographed limited edition flat screen TVs that they could sell for double the price of normal.</p><p>Seriously, the only "change" they seem to need to make to meet what the customer wants is to give their product away for free, on demand, on any device, at any time, from anywhere, and at no cost. Sounds like a great plan, and as soon as you explain how they are going to pay for it...</p><p>When what the consumer wants is "something for nothing", it's pretty much a non-starter discussion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I am sure his comments will get the standard Techdirt drubbing , the reality is that he is correct .
It does n't sound nice to say it , but at this point , the consumers are wrong , and here is why : The main focus of your post Mike is the concept of " changing to match what customers want " .
The reality is that if consumers did not want the programming , that would be a good answer .
But it is clear through the actions of many that the programming is valuable and desirable , and people are willing to go a long way to get it , no matter the legality .
So you have pirate downloads , trafficked cable boxes , sat signal piracy , people paying for VPNs to be able to do P2P , etc .
All of this for what ?
To get the product that the cable company is selling.So " what customers want " is what they are selling .
That is established , it 's a clear fact.So , now " changing to match what customers want " , I would have to guess that you are suggesting that the cable companies should drop their subscription model .
Perhaps they could run on donations , or perhaps upsell people to dinner with a technician , perhaps selling limited edition " I met the cable company president " t-shirts , or perhaps autographed limited edition flat screen TVs that they could sell for double the price of normal.Seriously , the only " change " they seem to need to make to meet what the customer wants is to give their product away for free , on demand , on any device , at any time , from anywhere , and at no cost .
Sounds like a great plan , and as soon as you explain how they are going to pay for it...When what the consumer wants is " something for nothing " , it 's pretty much a non-starter discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I am sure his comments will get the standard Techdirt drubbing, the reality is that he is correct.
It doesn't sound nice to say it, but at this point, the consumers are wrong, and here is why:The main focus of your post Mike is the concept of "changing to match what customers want".
The reality is that if consumers did not want the programming, that would be a good answer.
But it is clear through the actions of many that the programming is valuable and desirable, and people are willing to go a long way to get it, no matter the legality.
So you have pirate downloads, trafficked cable boxes, sat signal piracy, people paying for VPNs to be able to do P2P, etc.
All of this for what?
To get the product that the cable company is selling.So "what customers want" is what they are selling.
That is established, it's a clear fact.So, now "changing to match what customers want", I would have to guess that you are suggesting that the cable companies should drop their subscription model.
Perhaps they could run on donations, or perhaps upsell people to dinner with a technician, perhaps selling limited edition "I met the cable company president" t-shirts, or perhaps autographed limited edition flat screen TVs that they could sell for double the price of normal.Seriously, the only "change" they seem to need to make to meet what the customer wants is to give their product away for free, on demand, on any device, at any time, from anywhere, and at no cost.
Sounds like a great plan, and as soon as you explain how they are going to pay for it...When what the consumer wants is "something for nothing", it's pretty much a non-starter discussion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010466</id>
	<title>What's a COO?</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1257505560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chief Orgy Officer comes to mine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chief Orgy Officer comes to mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chief Orgy Officer comes to mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010744</id>
	<title>Re:If it doesn't feel that illegal, people don't c</title>
	<author>BorgDrone</author>
	<datestamp>1257507360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The truth is that psychologically, if you can do something with a couple clicks of a button while you sit at home eating potato chips in your living room, it doesn't feel that illegal, regardless of what the law is or isn't.</p></div></blockquote><p>The reason it doesn't feel illegal is not that it's easy to do. It's easy to shoot someone while you sit at home eating potato chips, just point a gun at one of your family members and pull the trigger, but that DOES feel wrong, doesn't it ? Killing someone is illegal because we evolved to strongly dislike killing our own kind (not getting killed = more members of species). Same goes for stealing (not letting others steal your food = better chance of survival).</p><p>Similarly, the effects of supply and demand are quite 'instinctive'. If something is in limited supply and there is a strong demand, a higher price feels natural. For example: the most attractive girl in school will get the most attention and boys will go through quite a lot of trouble to get a date with her, would they spend the same amount of time and effort on a slutty girl who sleeps with everyone ? Simple survival instinct, if something is desirable for whatever reason (attractive =&gt; better offspring, tasty =&gt; better quality food) and there is a limited supply, our instinct tells us it's worth it to invest more to obtain it and get that advantage. If supply is limitless, then there is no need to spend resources on obtaining it.</p><p>We don't have a built-in dislike for taking something of which there is a limitless supply (copies) because there is no need for such a thing.  In fact, it's quite the opposite. The story in the bible about Jesus sharing 5 loafs of bread with 5000 people is not there to warn you of the dangers of copyright violation, the guy turning 5 loafs into enough for 5000 was not the bad guy in that story. Sharing is good for the species, especially if it doesn't cost you a thing.</p><p>I would like to argue that the problem with copyright in the 'digital age' is not that copying doesn't feel wrong, it's that charging for something that can be copied with little to no cost does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The truth is that psychologically , if you can do something with a couple clicks of a button while you sit at home eating potato chips in your living room , it does n't feel that illegal , regardless of what the law is or is n't.The reason it does n't feel illegal is not that it 's easy to do .
It 's easy to shoot someone while you sit at home eating potato chips , just point a gun at one of your family members and pull the trigger , but that DOES feel wrong , does n't it ?
Killing someone is illegal because we evolved to strongly dislike killing our own kind ( not getting killed = more members of species ) .
Same goes for stealing ( not letting others steal your food = better chance of survival ) .Similarly , the effects of supply and demand are quite 'instinctive' .
If something is in limited supply and there is a strong demand , a higher price feels natural .
For example : the most attractive girl in school will get the most attention and boys will go through quite a lot of trouble to get a date with her , would they spend the same amount of time and effort on a slutty girl who sleeps with everyone ?
Simple survival instinct , if something is desirable for whatever reason ( attractive = &gt; better offspring , tasty = &gt; better quality food ) and there is a limited supply , our instinct tells us it 's worth it to invest more to obtain it and get that advantage .
If supply is limitless , then there is no need to spend resources on obtaining it.We do n't have a built-in dislike for taking something of which there is a limitless supply ( copies ) because there is no need for such a thing .
In fact , it 's quite the opposite .
The story in the bible about Jesus sharing 5 loafs of bread with 5000 people is not there to warn you of the dangers of copyright violation , the guy turning 5 loafs into enough for 5000 was not the bad guy in that story .
Sharing is good for the species , especially if it does n't cost you a thing.I would like to argue that the problem with copyright in the 'digital age ' is not that copying does n't feel wrong , it 's that charging for something that can be copied with little to no cost does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The truth is that psychologically, if you can do something with a couple clicks of a button while you sit at home eating potato chips in your living room, it doesn't feel that illegal, regardless of what the law is or isn't.The reason it doesn't feel illegal is not that it's easy to do.
It's easy to shoot someone while you sit at home eating potato chips, just point a gun at one of your family members and pull the trigger, but that DOES feel wrong, doesn't it ?
Killing someone is illegal because we evolved to strongly dislike killing our own kind (not getting killed = more members of species).
Same goes for stealing (not letting others steal your food = better chance of survival).Similarly, the effects of supply and demand are quite 'instinctive'.
If something is in limited supply and there is a strong demand, a higher price feels natural.
For example: the most attractive girl in school will get the most attention and boys will go through quite a lot of trouble to get a date with her, would they spend the same amount of time and effort on a slutty girl who sleeps with everyone ?
Simple survival instinct, if something is desirable for whatever reason (attractive =&gt; better offspring, tasty =&gt; better quality food) and there is a limited supply, our instinct tells us it's worth it to invest more to obtain it and get that advantage.
If supply is limitless, then there is no need to spend resources on obtaining it.We don't have a built-in dislike for taking something of which there is a limitless supply (copies) because there is no need for such a thing.
In fact, it's quite the opposite.
The story in the bible about Jesus sharing 5 loafs of bread with 5000 people is not there to warn you of the dangers of copyright violation, the guy turning 5 loafs into enough for 5000 was not the bad guy in that story.
Sharing is good for the species, especially if it doesn't cost you a thing.I would like to argue that the problem with copyright in the 'digital age' is not that copying doesn't feel wrong, it's that charging for something that can be copied with little to no cost does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008610</id>
	<title>FreeStuff?</title>
	<author>franblets</author>
	<datestamp>1257540540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When was the last time you went to McDonalds and got a free hamburger or GM and got a free car?  How many of us can expect to work for FREE.  That is what is happening here.  It is not a matter making things fit some demand model.  Demanding that things be free, doesn't make it so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time you went to McDonalds and got a free hamburger or GM and got a free car ?
How many of us can expect to work for FREE .
That is what is happening here .
It is not a matter making things fit some demand model .
Demanding that things be free , does n't make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time you went to McDonalds and got a free hamburger or GM and got a free car?
How many of us can expect to work for FREE.
That is what is happening here.
It is not a matter making things fit some demand model.
Demanding that things be free, doesn't make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008432</id>
	<title>Good luck</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1257539640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish him good luck in trying to convince people with arguable morality to just look away from the cheaper solution.</p><p>Now, when he decides to target the rest of the people, it could be more profitable to change the message from:</p><p>"It's illegal to make any copy or to broadcast this media on your own."</p><p>into</p><p>"It's ok to record and repeat it to yourself, family and friends for no profit. If you plan to broadcast it to a larger audience, contact our Customer Service for ideas on how everyone can profit from that. We understand that we can't keep growing our profit by strangling our customers. With a little compromise, everyone will be happy."</p><p>My suggestions for the aforementioned ideas:</p><p>- If the broadcast will take place on a commerce, we only ask for a feeble 1\% from the sales during the broadcast.<br>- If the broadcast will take place on a public area, tell us where and we'll bring the catering, to which the profit will be entirely to us or shared with the government responsible for the area.<br>- If you plan to distribute the media online, allow us to insert some ad service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish him good luck in trying to convince people with arguable morality to just look away from the cheaper solution.Now , when he decides to target the rest of the people , it could be more profitable to change the message from : " It 's illegal to make any copy or to broadcast this media on your own .
" into " It 's ok to record and repeat it to yourself , family and friends for no profit .
If you plan to broadcast it to a larger audience , contact our Customer Service for ideas on how everyone can profit from that .
We understand that we ca n't keep growing our profit by strangling our customers .
With a little compromise , everyone will be happy .
" My suggestions for the aforementioned ideas : - If the broadcast will take place on a commerce , we only ask for a feeble 1 \ % from the sales during the broadcast.- If the broadcast will take place on a public area , tell us where and we 'll bring the catering , to which the profit will be entirely to us or shared with the government responsible for the area.- If you plan to distribute the media online , allow us to insert some ad service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish him good luck in trying to convince people with arguable morality to just look away from the cheaper solution.Now, when he decides to target the rest of the people, it could be more profitable to change the message from:"It's illegal to make any copy or to broadcast this media on your own.
"into"It's ok to record and repeat it to yourself, family and friends for no profit.
If you plan to broadcast it to a larger audience, contact our Customer Service for ideas on how everyone can profit from that.
We understand that we can't keep growing our profit by strangling our customers.
With a little compromise, everyone will be happy.
"My suggestions for the aforementioned ideas:- If the broadcast will take place on a commerce, we only ask for a feeble 1\% from the sales during the broadcast.- If the broadcast will take place on a public area, tell us where and we'll bring the catering, to which the profit will be entirely to us or shared with the government responsible for the area.- If you plan to distribute the media online, allow us to insert some ad service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350</id>
	<title>"products that consumers will willingly pay for"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What product would that be? <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/21/071251/World-of-Goo-Creators-Try-Pick-Your-Price-Experiment" title="slashdot.org">The World of Goo payment experiment</a> [slashdot.org] effectively demonstrated that when consumers can choose how much they want to pay for a valuable product they, for the most part, to pay far less than it's worth. I don't think piracy comes down to a quality issue with the product.</p><p>Don't like copyrights? Fine, write to your government representative. Don't like the product? Don't watch it. Piracy is not a statement; it's transparently self-serving and to claim otherwise is to delude yourself.</p><p>Big Content has to change it's business model, not because it's ethically wrong, but because people simply aren't going to stop violating copyrights because they're cheap.</p><p>Now I'm not saying that think that copyright is perfect. It isn't and it needs a serious reform but that isn't an excuse to violate it for your own interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What product would that be ?
The World of Goo payment experiment [ slashdot.org ] effectively demonstrated that when consumers can choose how much they want to pay for a valuable product they , for the most part , to pay far less than it 's worth .
I do n't think piracy comes down to a quality issue with the product.Do n't like copyrights ?
Fine , write to your government representative .
Do n't like the product ?
Do n't watch it .
Piracy is not a statement ; it 's transparently self-serving and to claim otherwise is to delude yourself.Big Content has to change it 's business model , not because it 's ethically wrong , but because people simply are n't going to stop violating copyrights because they 're cheap.Now I 'm not saying that think that copyright is perfect .
It is n't and it needs a serious reform but that is n't an excuse to violate it for your own interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What product would that be?
The World of Goo payment experiment [slashdot.org] effectively demonstrated that when consumers can choose how much they want to pay for a valuable product they, for the most part, to pay far less than it's worth.
I don't think piracy comes down to a quality issue with the product.Don't like copyrights?
Fine, write to your government representative.
Don't like the product?
Don't watch it.
Piracy is not a statement; it's transparently self-serving and to claim otherwise is to delude yourself.Big Content has to change it's business model, not because it's ethically wrong, but because people simply aren't going to stop violating copyrights because they're cheap.Now I'm not saying that think that copyright is perfect.
It isn't and it needs a serious reform but that isn't an excuse to violate it for your own interests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008378</id>
	<title>Pretty typical Comcast.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257539400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They never did figure out that the consumer can find an alternate if they really want. As far as they're concerned, all of those tech types and their followers are a bunch of pirates, if not outright thieves.</p><p>The real issue is that they still have a bunch of marketing feebs running a technical organization. While I was there, I got to listen to a weekly "pep talk" from the marketing feeb CEO of Comcast online. How depressing, a room temperature IQ explaining how an ISP is run.</p><p>Glad I never was a customer. The HR feeb I exit interviewed with was amazed that someone could live without them. That should explain the mindset around there.</p><p>Posting anonymously because I still have friends there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They never did figure out that the consumer can find an alternate if they really want .
As far as they 're concerned , all of those tech types and their followers are a bunch of pirates , if not outright thieves.The real issue is that they still have a bunch of marketing feebs running a technical organization .
While I was there , I got to listen to a weekly " pep talk " from the marketing feeb CEO of Comcast online .
How depressing , a room temperature IQ explaining how an ISP is run.Glad I never was a customer .
The HR feeb I exit interviewed with was amazed that someone could live without them .
That should explain the mindset around there.Posting anonymously because I still have friends there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They never did figure out that the consumer can find an alternate if they really want.
As far as they're concerned, all of those tech types and their followers are a bunch of pirates, if not outright thieves.The real issue is that they still have a bunch of marketing feebs running a technical organization.
While I was there, I got to listen to a weekly "pep talk" from the marketing feeb CEO of Comcast online.
How depressing, a room temperature IQ explaining how an ISP is run.Glad I never was a customer.
The HR feeb I exit interviewed with was amazed that someone could live without them.
That should explain the mindset around there.Posting anonymously because I still have friends there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010076</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257503460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see one of my 17 freaks has mod points... or maybe it's an RIAA exec? Keep trying, son, my karma's solid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see one of my 17 freaks has mod points... or maybe it 's an RIAA exec ?
Keep trying , son , my karma 's solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see one of my 17 freaks has mod points... or maybe it's an RIAA exec?
Keep trying, son, my karma's solid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>idiot900</author>
	<datestamp>1257537840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Changing customers' behavior is exactly what advertising and marketing are meant to accomplish. It's just usually aimed at getting people to buy your product. Here, instead of "Buy our $FOO now!" the message is "Don't download our $FOO!". I don't see why I should be angrier about this than about advertising in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing customers ' behavior is exactly what advertising and marketing are meant to accomplish .
It 's just usually aimed at getting people to buy your product .
Here , instead of " Buy our $ FOO now !
" the message is " Do n't download our $ FOO ! " .
I do n't see why I should be angrier about this than about advertising in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing customers' behavior is exactly what advertising and marketing are meant to accomplish.
It's just usually aimed at getting people to buy your product.
Here, instead of "Buy our $FOO now!
" the message is "Don't download our $FOO!".
I don't see why I should be angrier about this than about advertising in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009528</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1257501060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's legally okay when media producers have succeeded in extending copyright so that it's for all intents and purposes infinite. Copyright is defined as having a temporary effect for the good of the people, expressly for the purpose of contributing to the public domain body of arts and sciences.  That the law has been extended to be practically infinite is unconstitutional, but no one has successfully challenged it because in modern cases, it's not the law that wins, but who has the deepest pockets and can appeal more times.</p><p>When you have an immoral law, it's perfectly fine to break it, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's legally okay when media producers have succeeded in extending copyright so that it 's for all intents and purposes infinite .
Copyright is defined as having a temporary effect for the good of the people , expressly for the purpose of contributing to the public domain body of arts and sciences .
That the law has been extended to be practically infinite is unconstitutional , but no one has successfully challenged it because in modern cases , it 's not the law that wins , but who has the deepest pockets and can appeal more times.When you have an immoral law , it 's perfectly fine to break it , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's legally okay when media producers have succeeded in extending copyright so that it's for all intents and purposes infinite.
Copyright is defined as having a temporary effect for the good of the people, expressly for the purpose of contributing to the public domain body of arts and sciences.
That the law has been extended to be practically infinite is unconstitutional, but no one has successfully challenged it because in modern cases, it's not the law that wins, but who has the deepest pockets and can appeal more times.When you have an immoral law, it's perfectly fine to break it, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012538</id>
	<title>I Chose FIOS instead</title>
	<author>f16c</author>
	<datestamp>1257530700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a fellow come to my door and ask what Comcast could do to return to them as a customer. My answer was that I would return if they became another company. I went to Verizon and my services work, They're less expensive and I do not have to deal with Comcast customer service at all. Verizon has been a pleasant experience over all for me in the Baltimore/DC metro corridor (Columbia, MD).</p><p>I think Verizon has a much better chance of changing my behavior than Comcast does particularly so considering I've been so happy without them in my life for the last two years now. This is competition in action: A better company came along and ate their lunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a fellow come to my door and ask what Comcast could do to return to them as a customer .
My answer was that I would return if they became another company .
I went to Verizon and my services work , They 're less expensive and I do not have to deal with Comcast customer service at all .
Verizon has been a pleasant experience over all for me in the Baltimore/DC metro corridor ( Columbia , MD ) .I think Verizon has a much better chance of changing my behavior than Comcast does particularly so considering I 've been so happy without them in my life for the last two years now .
This is competition in action : A better company came along and ate their lunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a fellow come to my door and ask what Comcast could do to return to them as a customer.
My answer was that I would return if they became another company.
I went to Verizon and my services work, They're less expensive and I do not have to deal with Comcast customer service at all.
Verizon has been a pleasant experience over all for me in the Baltimore/DC metro corridor (Columbia, MD).I think Verizon has a much better chance of changing my behavior than Comcast does particularly so considering I've been so happy without them in my life for the last two years now.
This is competition in action: A better company came along and ate their lunch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008068</id>
	<title>Not very smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Changing consumer behaviour is harder than changing the market. And it will cost less rights.</p><p>By applying Ockhams razor, this idea is to be revoked!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Changing consumer behaviour is harder than changing the market .
And it will cost less rights.By applying Ockhams razor , this idea is to be revoked !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Changing consumer behaviour is harder than changing the market.
And it will cost less rights.By applying Ockhams razor, this idea is to be revoked!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010314</id>
	<title>Chick Flicks? Not with my cash, sweetie.</title>
	<author>Xeleema</author>
	<datestamp>1257504780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OKay, I don't own a television, and I have no intention of getting one.   If I need media-based entertainment I go to one of three sources;<br>1. iTunes<br>2. "Other" Downloads.<br>3. Rent a DVD from a Brick-and-Mortar place.<br>4. Go to the theater.<br><br>Now, that's in priority.  The only way Big Media is going to get my hard earned cash is if they cut a deal with iTunes, get it on the racks at BlockBuster, or make it damn-good enough in the first place for me to go straight to the theater.  And that last one is a joke.  For some reason, the local theaters in my area have actually refused to carry the types of movies that appeal to my demographic (the last "Punisher" flick was no where to be found).   However, every one of the theaters have been crawling with chick flicks for the past six months.  The horror.<br><br>I have one requirement for chick flicks; if you want my $8 per ticket there had better be either;<br>A) Non-male Nudity.  This is a Cash-for-Boobies opportunity.  Not complicated.<br>B) Exit Wounds.  Someone buys the farm, and I *don't* mean in a Leonardo-DiCaprio-Titanic way.<br><br>Now here's the real kicker.  Those two chick flick requirements are not going to change.  You want me to take a few of my female friends to the movies to see Penelope Cruz' latest attempt at acting?  Then make it *worth* my time.<br>Hell, you want to guarantee a ticket? Put the nudity/death in the freaking previews!<br><br>Now I realize that I might sound a bit immature here, but lets face facts.  When I walk into a theater, I can't ask them for plot, character development, or reflections of world issues any more.  But what I can ask for is special effects, nudity and violence.<br><br>Case in point;  someone get Michael Bay to crank out a "Decepticons vs The PlayBoy Mansion" (rated R, at least), and just watch the cash flow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OKay , I do n't own a television , and I have no intention of getting one .
If I need media-based entertainment I go to one of three sources ; 1. iTunes2. " Other " Downloads.3 .
Rent a DVD from a Brick-and-Mortar place.4 .
Go to the theater.Now , that 's in priority .
The only way Big Media is going to get my hard earned cash is if they cut a deal with iTunes , get it on the racks at BlockBuster , or make it damn-good enough in the first place for me to go straight to the theater .
And that last one is a joke .
For some reason , the local theaters in my area have actually refused to carry the types of movies that appeal to my demographic ( the last " Punisher " flick was no where to be found ) .
However , every one of the theaters have been crawling with chick flicks for the past six months .
The horror.I have one requirement for chick flicks ; if you want my $ 8 per ticket there had better be either ; A ) Non-male Nudity .
This is a Cash-for-Boobies opportunity .
Not complicated.B ) Exit Wounds .
Someone buys the farm , and I * do n't * mean in a Leonardo-DiCaprio-Titanic way.Now here 's the real kicker .
Those two chick flick requirements are not going to change .
You want me to take a few of my female friends to the movies to see Penelope Cruz ' latest attempt at acting ?
Then make it * worth * my time.Hell , you want to guarantee a ticket ?
Put the nudity/death in the freaking previews ! Now I realize that I might sound a bit immature here , but lets face facts .
When I walk into a theater , I ca n't ask them for plot , character development , or reflections of world issues any more .
But what I can ask for is special effects , nudity and violence.Case in point ; someone get Michael Bay to crank out a " Decepticons vs The PlayBoy Mansion " ( rated R , at least ) , and just watch the cash flow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OKay, I don't own a television, and I have no intention of getting one.
If I need media-based entertainment I go to one of three sources;1. iTunes2. "Other" Downloads.3.
Rent a DVD from a Brick-and-Mortar place.4.
Go to the theater.Now, that's in priority.
The only way Big Media is going to get my hard earned cash is if they cut a deal with iTunes, get it on the racks at BlockBuster, or make it damn-good enough in the first place for me to go straight to the theater.
And that last one is a joke.
For some reason, the local theaters in my area have actually refused to carry the types of movies that appeal to my demographic (the last "Punisher" flick was no where to be found).
However, every one of the theaters have been crawling with chick flicks for the past six months.
The horror.I have one requirement for chick flicks; if you want my $8 per ticket there had better be either;A) Non-male Nudity.
This is a Cash-for-Boobies opportunity.
Not complicated.B) Exit Wounds.
Someone buys the farm, and I *don't* mean in a Leonardo-DiCaprio-Titanic way.Now here's the real kicker.
Those two chick flick requirements are not going to change.
You want me to take a few of my female friends to the movies to see Penelope Cruz' latest attempt at acting?
Then make it *worth* my time.Hell, you want to guarantee a ticket?
Put the nudity/death in the freaking previews!Now I realize that I might sound a bit immature here, but lets face facts.
When I walk into a theater, I can't ask them for plot, character development, or reflections of world issues any more.
But what I can ask for is special effects, nudity and violence.Case in point;  someone get Michael Bay to crank out a "Decepticons vs The PlayBoy Mansion" (rated R, at least), and just watch the cash flow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009446</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>YojimboJango</author>
	<datestamp>1257500760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree to your disagreement.</p><p>
 iTunes/Amazon didn't come around till well after the rise of digital music sharing.  People wanted to get their music song by song instead of paying $18 bucks for a CD with one good song on it.  The RIAA refused for the longest time because they were making so much money forcing people to pay $18 bucks for a single good song and 8 cents of pressed plastic.  People didn't like it and turned to the internet where they received everything for free.  Then half a decade later iTunes came out with a limited selection of music, and had to fight tooth and nail to get the RIAA to let them compete.  I was watching TV online long before Netflix and Hulu ever came out and fought tooth and nail to let the MPAA to let them show tv over the internet.</p><p>You say that buisness models take time to change, and it would be impossible to react to Napster once it came out, but the fact is that Napster was such a hit because there was such a strong demand for digital music.  The business models should have adopted to what customers wanted; cheap singles instead of albums full of crap, and also digital downloads.  If they would have pulled their heads out, they would've seen the demand for this and had something setup back in the mid 90's.  But instead they waited till about 2005 before they grudgingly let iTunes become the success it is today, but by that time they were 10 years too late.  People had been wanting it for so long they went somewhere else to get it.  And then gotten used to going there.</p><p>I'm guessing that everyone here has a favorite place to get their video/audio.  I know I do.  It wasn't till about a year ago that Amazon became that favorite place for me to get my music.  I also always buy my games off Steam now.  I have my habits and a feeling of 'brand loyalty'.  Even if that brand was just a specific community that hosted all the stuff I wanted.  A smart buisness would have seen the popularity of digital music/games/video and created a community around paying for it.  Amazon, Steam, and Hulu seem to be my first choice now, but back in the mid 90's?  There was nothing, and it took me a long time to 'go legit'.  You could also argue that, the ones I call early adopters, just wanted free stuff, but I'd say that the overwhelming success of all these companies show that it's more than people wanting free audio/video/games.  They also wanted digital distribution.  They wanted them enough to pay for them, and they still do.  If they didn't these huge success stories would never have happened.</p><p>Lets even look at current circumstance.  I know a lot of people that have cable.  They actually pay for the ability to see shows, but they end up torrenting them.  Why?  They're 'stealing' something they've already paid for.  Why would they go through the trouble of breaking the law to steal something they already own?  It's because it's more convenient to watch when you actually have time to sit down with it.  Now the content industry can go one of two ways here.  Compete by letting users watch shows on demand and selling DVR's, or they can fight the consumer and try to 'plug the analog hole' and legislating DVR's out of existence.   All evidence shows that these idiots haven't learned a damn thing.  They're fighting the users again while companies like Netflix and TiVo are fighting tooth and nail to get content to users.  Just like iTunes did before them.</p><p>They can fight and whine and complain all they want, but they never seem to figure it out.  Their customers have options, just because you've paid off senators to make them illegal doesn't take them away.  They will always be there and you can compete or fight a loosing battle over it.  Video on demand will become commonplace for everything (not just movies), it's just a matter of how much money they want to throw away fighting the inevitable.  Also the more they spend fighting it, the more people will turn to piracy to get it, and the more brand loyalty they give to the pirates, and the more they are placed in situations</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree to your disagreement .
iTunes/Amazon did n't come around till well after the rise of digital music sharing .
People wanted to get their music song by song instead of paying $ 18 bucks for a CD with one good song on it .
The RIAA refused for the longest time because they were making so much money forcing people to pay $ 18 bucks for a single good song and 8 cents of pressed plastic .
People did n't like it and turned to the internet where they received everything for free .
Then half a decade later iTunes came out with a limited selection of music , and had to fight tooth and nail to get the RIAA to let them compete .
I was watching TV online long before Netflix and Hulu ever came out and fought tooth and nail to let the MPAA to let them show tv over the internet.You say that buisness models take time to change , and it would be impossible to react to Napster once it came out , but the fact is that Napster was such a hit because there was such a strong demand for digital music .
The business models should have adopted to what customers wanted ; cheap singles instead of albums full of crap , and also digital downloads .
If they would have pulled their heads out , they would 've seen the demand for this and had something setup back in the mid 90 's .
But instead they waited till about 2005 before they grudgingly let iTunes become the success it is today , but by that time they were 10 years too late .
People had been wanting it for so long they went somewhere else to get it .
And then gotten used to going there.I 'm guessing that everyone here has a favorite place to get their video/audio .
I know I do .
It was n't till about a year ago that Amazon became that favorite place for me to get my music .
I also always buy my games off Steam now .
I have my habits and a feeling of 'brand loyalty' .
Even if that brand was just a specific community that hosted all the stuff I wanted .
A smart buisness would have seen the popularity of digital music/games/video and created a community around paying for it .
Amazon , Steam , and Hulu seem to be my first choice now , but back in the mid 90 's ?
There was nothing , and it took me a long time to 'go legit' .
You could also argue that , the ones I call early adopters , just wanted free stuff , but I 'd say that the overwhelming success of all these companies show that it 's more than people wanting free audio/video/games .
They also wanted digital distribution .
They wanted them enough to pay for them , and they still do .
If they did n't these huge success stories would never have happened.Lets even look at current circumstance .
I know a lot of people that have cable .
They actually pay for the ability to see shows , but they end up torrenting them .
Why ? They 're 'stealing ' something they 've already paid for .
Why would they go through the trouble of breaking the law to steal something they already own ?
It 's because it 's more convenient to watch when you actually have time to sit down with it .
Now the content industry can go one of two ways here .
Compete by letting users watch shows on demand and selling DVR 's , or they can fight the consumer and try to 'plug the analog hole ' and legislating DVR 's out of existence .
All evidence shows that these idiots have n't learned a damn thing .
They 're fighting the users again while companies like Netflix and TiVo are fighting tooth and nail to get content to users .
Just like iTunes did before them.They can fight and whine and complain all they want , but they never seem to figure it out .
Their customers have options , just because you 've paid off senators to make them illegal does n't take them away .
They will always be there and you can compete or fight a loosing battle over it .
Video on demand will become commonplace for everything ( not just movies ) , it 's just a matter of how much money they want to throw away fighting the inevitable .
Also the more they spend fighting it , the more people will turn to piracy to get it , and the more brand loyalty they give to the pirates , and the more they are placed in situations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree to your disagreement.
iTunes/Amazon didn't come around till well after the rise of digital music sharing.
People wanted to get their music song by song instead of paying $18 bucks for a CD with one good song on it.
The RIAA refused for the longest time because they were making so much money forcing people to pay $18 bucks for a single good song and 8 cents of pressed plastic.
People didn't like it and turned to the internet where they received everything for free.
Then half a decade later iTunes came out with a limited selection of music, and had to fight tooth and nail to get the RIAA to let them compete.
I was watching TV online long before Netflix and Hulu ever came out and fought tooth and nail to let the MPAA to let them show tv over the internet.You say that buisness models take time to change, and it would be impossible to react to Napster once it came out, but the fact is that Napster was such a hit because there was such a strong demand for digital music.
The business models should have adopted to what customers wanted; cheap singles instead of albums full of crap, and also digital downloads.
If they would have pulled their heads out, they would've seen the demand for this and had something setup back in the mid 90's.
But instead they waited till about 2005 before they grudgingly let iTunes become the success it is today, but by that time they were 10 years too late.
People had been wanting it for so long they went somewhere else to get it.
And then gotten used to going there.I'm guessing that everyone here has a favorite place to get their video/audio.
I know I do.
It wasn't till about a year ago that Amazon became that favorite place for me to get my music.
I also always buy my games off Steam now.
I have my habits and a feeling of 'brand loyalty'.
Even if that brand was just a specific community that hosted all the stuff I wanted.
A smart buisness would have seen the popularity of digital music/games/video and created a community around paying for it.
Amazon, Steam, and Hulu seem to be my first choice now, but back in the mid 90's?
There was nothing, and it took me a long time to 'go legit'.
You could also argue that, the ones I call early adopters, just wanted free stuff, but I'd say that the overwhelming success of all these companies show that it's more than people wanting free audio/video/games.
They also wanted digital distribution.
They wanted them enough to pay for them, and they still do.
If they didn't these huge success stories would never have happened.Lets even look at current circumstance.
I know a lot of people that have cable.
They actually pay for the ability to see shows, but they end up torrenting them.
Why?  They're 'stealing' something they've already paid for.
Why would they go through the trouble of breaking the law to steal something they already own?
It's because it's more convenient to watch when you actually have time to sit down with it.
Now the content industry can go one of two ways here.
Compete by letting users watch shows on demand and selling DVR's, or they can fight the consumer and try to 'plug the analog hole' and legislating DVR's out of existence.
All evidence shows that these idiots haven't learned a damn thing.
They're fighting the users again while companies like Netflix and TiVo are fighting tooth and nail to get content to users.
Just like iTunes did before them.They can fight and whine and complain all they want, but they never seem to figure it out.
Their customers have options, just because you've paid off senators to make them illegal doesn't take them away.
They will always be there and you can compete or fight a loosing battle over it.
Video on demand will become commonplace for everything (not just movies), it's just a matter of how much money they want to throw away fighting the inevitable.
Also the more they spend fighting it, the more people will turn to piracy to get it, and the more brand loyalty they give to the pirates, and the more they are placed in situations</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009112</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ethics and Morals are an invention OF the media companies in order to get you to pay for what should be free.  Content/Information wants to be free?!@$!@\%!@111</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ethics and Morals are an invention OF the media companies in order to get you to pay for what should be free .
Content/Information wants to be free ? ! @ $ ! @ \ % !
@ 111</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ethics and Morals are an invention OF the media companies in order to get you to pay for what should be free.
Content/Information wants to be free?!@$!@\%!
@111</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009050</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>ArbitraryDescriptor</author>
	<datestamp>1257499080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay for</p></div><p>Problem is, that is only the first part of the equation.  To make money they have to make me want to pay, then they have to actually make it possible for me to pay.  Let's say I love Dollhouse, many do not, that's fine.  Fact is Fox has made a show that I am more than willing to pay for, but I have no way to do so as I simply am not home watching TV when the show airs.  I watch it on Hulu, but Hulu doesn't pay shit.  So here we are: I'm standing here waving a fistful of cash around and no one will take it, meanwhile Dollhouse's ratings go to shit; Fox is losing profits, and once it's finally cancelled: we both lose.<br> <br>

This is because they are, in effect, <em>refusing</em> my business. I can respect copyright all day and make sweet, imaginary love to it all night; it isn't going to get my money into their wallet if they refuse to take it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , yes , media companies ( and indies , etc ) should develop things that people are willing to pay forProblem is , that is only the first part of the equation .
To make money they have to make me want to pay , then they have to actually make it possible for me to pay .
Let 's say I love Dollhouse , many do not , that 's fine .
Fact is Fox has made a show that I am more than willing to pay for , but I have no way to do so as I simply am not home watching TV when the show airs .
I watch it on Hulu , but Hulu does n't pay shit .
So here we are : I 'm standing here waving a fistful of cash around and no one will take it , meanwhile Dollhouse 's ratings go to shit ; Fox is losing profits , and once it 's finally cancelled : we both lose .
This is because they are , in effect , refusing my business .
I can respect copyright all day and make sweet , imaginary love to it all night ; it is n't going to get my money into their wallet if they refuse to take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, yes, media companies (and indies, etc) should develop things that people are willing to pay forProblem is, that is only the first part of the equation.
To make money they have to make me want to pay, then they have to actually make it possible for me to pay.
Let's say I love Dollhouse, many do not, that's fine.
Fact is Fox has made a show that I am more than willing to pay for, but I have no way to do so as I simply am not home watching TV when the show airs.
I watch it on Hulu, but Hulu doesn't pay shit.
So here we are: I'm standing here waving a fistful of cash around and no one will take it, meanwhile Dollhouse's ratings go to shit; Fox is losing profits, and once it's finally cancelled: we both lose.
This is because they are, in effect, refusing my business.
I can respect copyright all day and make sweet, imaginary love to it all night; it isn't going to get my money into their wallet if they refuse to take it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008294</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1257539040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People justify making pirated copies of copyrighted works because</p><p>A) Their works are overpriced<br>B) It's easy to do<br>C) They can't stop us with their puny DRM<br>D) Uhh... what's wrong with that?</p><p>And this Comcast genius thinks that by getting everybody on board* with solving D that he'll make more money^H^H^Hsave the cable industry?</p><p>Somebody drive* this MPAA shill to the funny farm.</p><p>*Obligatory vehicle analogies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People justify making pirated copies of copyrighted works becauseA ) Their works are overpricedB ) It 's easy to doC ) They ca n't stop us with their puny DRMD ) Uhh... what 's wrong with that ? And this Comcast genius thinks that by getting everybody on board * with solving D that he 'll make more money ^ H ^ H ^ Hsave the cable industry ? Somebody drive * this MPAA shill to the funny farm .
* Obligatory vehicle analogies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People justify making pirated copies of copyrighted works becauseA) Their works are overpricedB) It's easy to doC) They can't stop us with their puny DRMD) Uhh... what's wrong with that?And this Comcast genius thinks that by getting everybody on board* with solving D that he'll make more money^H^H^Hsave the cable industry?Somebody drive* this MPAA shill to the funny farm.
*Obligatory vehicle analogies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008212</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1257538680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not an RIAA/MPAA shill, but after:</p><p>"I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.</p><p>Have fun!"</p><p>you're definitely trolling.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not an RIAA/MPAA shill , but after : " I now expect 4 dozen posts , making car analogies , expounding on the " false " argument of lost sales , and pointing out that I 'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.Have fun !
" you 're definitely trolling .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not an RIAA/MPAA shill, but after:"I now expect 4 dozen posts, making car analogies, expounding on the "false" argument of lost sales, and pointing out that I'm likely an astroturfing RIAA/MPAA shill.Have fun!
"you're definitely trolling.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010426</id>
	<title>I got an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257505380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's change consumers and execs so they are less stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's change consumers and execs so they are less stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's change consumers and execs so they are less stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011404</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement - whose entitlement, exactly?</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1257512760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, but the argument being made by people who talk about marginal production cost approaching zero aren't (ok, not all of them anyway) asking for stuff to be free - what I want is, the reduction in marginal cost of production to be reflected in the price I pay, for movies or tv or music.</p><p>Take movies, the worst offender IMO. Movie theater tickets have doubled in price in the last ooh, what? 15 years or so?</p><p>What people are suggesting is, if it costs 20 bucks to buy a DVD of "Terminator - Salvation" in a store, that a digital copy, with it's marginal cost of production, should be available for a fraction of that price.</p><p>The content owners want to do what every other corporation has done with new tech that brings down production costs - they want to realize all the benefits of new tech, but they want to keep the price structure of a pre-internet, bandwidth-scarce, world.</p><p>This is all really complicated, and difficult. We can have a lot of meaningful debate on where the price points should be. But a digital copy of something should be a fraction of the physical version, and that's something that every content owner is not only fighting, they're pretending the argument doesn't even exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , but the argument being made by people who talk about marginal production cost approaching zero are n't ( ok , not all of them anyway ) asking for stuff to be free - what I want is , the reduction in marginal cost of production to be reflected in the price I pay , for movies or tv or music.Take movies , the worst offender IMO .
Movie theater tickets have doubled in price in the last ooh , what ?
15 years or so ? What people are suggesting is , if it costs 20 bucks to buy a DVD of " Terminator - Salvation " in a store , that a digital copy , with it 's marginal cost of production , should be available for a fraction of that price.The content owners want to do what every other corporation has done with new tech that brings down production costs - they want to realize all the benefits of new tech , but they want to keep the price structure of a pre-internet , bandwidth-scarce , world.This is all really complicated , and difficult .
We can have a lot of meaningful debate on where the price points should be .
But a digital copy of something should be a fraction of the physical version , and that 's something that every content owner is not only fighting , they 're pretending the argument does n't even exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, but the argument being made by people who talk about marginal production cost approaching zero aren't (ok, not all of them anyway) asking for stuff to be free - what I want is, the reduction in marginal cost of production to be reflected in the price I pay, for movies or tv or music.Take movies, the worst offender IMO.
Movie theater tickets have doubled in price in the last ooh, what?
15 years or so?What people are suggesting is, if it costs 20 bucks to buy a DVD of "Terminator - Salvation" in a store, that a digital copy, with it's marginal cost of production, should be available for a fraction of that price.The content owners want to do what every other corporation has done with new tech that brings down production costs - they want to realize all the benefits of new tech, but they want to keep the price structure of a pre-internet, bandwidth-scarce, world.This is all really complicated, and difficult.
We can have a lot of meaningful debate on where the price points should be.
But a digital copy of something should be a fraction of the physical version, and that's something that every content owner is not only fighting, they're pretending the argument doesn't even exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008768</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1257541080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that isn't the problem. Most of the people who steal content don't buy much anyway. They can't afford it.</p><p>What makes these jokers' knuckles white is the thought that somewhere, out there, someone is going to buy content, and then put it on the Internet. Nevermind the fact that the pirates get everything anyway, they can't handle the idea of their actual customers copying anything. Once people realize it costs nothing to copy, they'll never buy anything again! They won't need us anymore! Every DRM scheme is focused around keeping "honest people honest" by making copying a difficult process.</p><p>It is basically a moral panic, akin to the comics code, anti-porn hysteria, and the drug wars. They assume that as soon as taste the forbidden fruit, their entire industry will collapse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that is n't the problem .
Most of the people who steal content do n't buy much anyway .
They ca n't afford it.What makes these jokers ' knuckles white is the thought that somewhere , out there , someone is going to buy content , and then put it on the Internet .
Nevermind the fact that the pirates get everything anyway , they ca n't handle the idea of their actual customers copying anything .
Once people realize it costs nothing to copy , they 'll never buy anything again !
They wo n't need us anymore !
Every DRM scheme is focused around keeping " honest people honest " by making copying a difficult process.It is basically a moral panic , akin to the comics code , anti-porn hysteria , and the drug wars .
They assume that as soon as taste the forbidden fruit , their entire industry will collapse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that isn't the problem.
Most of the people who steal content don't buy much anyway.
They can't afford it.What makes these jokers' knuckles white is the thought that somewhere, out there, someone is going to buy content, and then put it on the Internet.
Nevermind the fact that the pirates get everything anyway, they can't handle the idea of their actual customers copying anything.
Once people realize it costs nothing to copy, they'll never buy anything again!
They won't need us anymore!
Every DRM scheme is focused around keeping "honest people honest" by making copying a difficult process.It is basically a moral panic, akin to the comics code, anti-porn hysteria, and the drug wars.
They assume that as soon as taste the forbidden fruit, their entire industry will collapse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257538800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'd like to ask a counter question. I freely acknowledge that there is no legal excuse for pirating something. But what is the <em>ethical</em> reason one should expect to be paid for, say, a movie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'd like to ask a counter question .
I freely acknowledge that there is no legal excuse for pirating something .
But what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for , say , a movie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'd like to ask a counter question.
I freely acknowledge that there is no legal excuse for pirating something.
But what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for, say, a movie?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008570</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257540360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated. They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work. This inspired people to create original content and not copy others. Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.</p></div><p>So because you enjoy one's work it is OK to illegally copy it so you can enjoy it for free?  Is this OK with paintings?  If a painter spends months making a painting is it OK for someone else to make prints of it and distribute it for free because no babies are getting killed or do the rules change for physical mediums because they feel more real and therefore you have an actual sense of stealing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated .
They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one 's work .
This inspired people to create original content and not copy others .
Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.So because you enjoy one 's work it is OK to illegally copy it so you can enjoy it for free ?
Is this OK with paintings ?
If a painter spends months making a painting is it OK for someone else to make prints of it and distribute it for free because no babies are getting killed or do the rules change for physical mediums because they feel more real and therefore you have an actual sense of stealing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am against the current copyright laws because they are out dated.
They were designed to prevent illegal copying and profit of one's work.
This inspired people to create original content and not copy others.
Unfortunately this is used to stop people from accessing media they enjoy.So because you enjoy one's work it is OK to illegally copy it so you can enjoy it for free?
Is this OK with paintings?
If a painter spends months making a painting is it OK for someone else to make prints of it and distribute it for free because no babies are getting killed or do the rules change for physical mediums because they feel more real and therefore you have an actual sense of stealing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009098</id>
	<title>Last night's episode of "30 Rock."</title>
	<author>californication</author>
	<datestamp>1257499320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to see a brilliant way to adapt your business model to your consumer?  Watch last night's episode of "30 Rock."  During the commercial break, I remember some Cisco commercial about a flat screen TV or something, which my brain forgot most of the details because it tuned out the commercial.  Then, during the actual show itself, there is a scene virtually co-starring the Cisco product in a not-so-subtle but hilarious way.  I now know that it's a teleconferencing product using high definition television and cameras because there's no way I could avoid paying attention to the product while watching the show at the same time.</p><p>People can pirate that show all they want and they'll still have to watch what amounts to a Cisco commercial, because taking it out would remove a significant and rather enjoyable portion of the episode.  The lack of subtlety worked because it was part of the joke, but I'm sure there are subtle ways to advertise a product within a show itself.  I'm not fond of product placement in shows, but I'd be more willing to put up with it if the content was free to watch and distribute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to see a brilliant way to adapt your business model to your consumer ?
Watch last night 's episode of " 30 Rock .
" During the commercial break , I remember some Cisco commercial about a flat screen TV or something , which my brain forgot most of the details because it tuned out the commercial .
Then , during the actual show itself , there is a scene virtually co-starring the Cisco product in a not-so-subtle but hilarious way .
I now know that it 's a teleconferencing product using high definition television and cameras because there 's no way I could avoid paying attention to the product while watching the show at the same time.People can pirate that show all they want and they 'll still have to watch what amounts to a Cisco commercial , because taking it out would remove a significant and rather enjoyable portion of the episode .
The lack of subtlety worked because it was part of the joke , but I 'm sure there are subtle ways to advertise a product within a show itself .
I 'm not fond of product placement in shows , but I 'd be more willing to put up with it if the content was free to watch and distribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to see a brilliant way to adapt your business model to your consumer?
Watch last night's episode of "30 Rock.
"  During the commercial break, I remember some Cisco commercial about a flat screen TV or something, which my brain forgot most of the details because it tuned out the commercial.
Then, during the actual show itself, there is a scene virtually co-starring the Cisco product in a not-so-subtle but hilarious way.
I now know that it's a teleconferencing product using high definition television and cameras because there's no way I could avoid paying attention to the product while watching the show at the same time.People can pirate that show all they want and they'll still have to watch what amounts to a Cisco commercial, because taking it out would remove a significant and rather enjoyable portion of the episode.
The lack of subtlety worked because it was part of the joke, but I'm sure there are subtle ways to advertise a product within a show itself.
I'm not fond of product placement in shows, but I'd be more willing to put up with it if the content was free to watch and distribute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010610</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257506580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Philip Seymour Hoffman as the coke addicted, hard-drinking skipper?  Or even Jack Black?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Philip Seymour Hoffman as the coke addicted , hard-drinking skipper ?
Or even Jack Black ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Philip Seymour Hoffman as the coke addicted, hard-drinking skipper?
Or even Jack Black?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006</id>
	<title>Just release TV shows for free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257537780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And make your money on touring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And make your money on touring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And make your money on touring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008086</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257538140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why in the hell should anybody respect anyone else's revenue streams? How about Comcast respect MY revenue stream by giving me free cable?</p><p>FUCK their revenue stream. Fix copyright and I'll respect that, otherwise they can fuck off. Legalize and regulate marijuana and I'll respect those regulations, otherwise they can fuck off too.</p><p>I'm not going to respect the disrespectable or the disrespectful. WTF are these guys smoking, anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why in the hell should anybody respect anyone else 's revenue streams ?
How about Comcast respect MY revenue stream by giving me free cable ? FUCK their revenue stream .
Fix copyright and I 'll respect that , otherwise they can fuck off .
Legalize and regulate marijuana and I 'll respect those regulations , otherwise they can fuck off too.I 'm not going to respect the disrespectable or the disrespectful .
WTF are these guys smoking , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why in the hell should anybody respect anyone else's revenue streams?
How about Comcast respect MY revenue stream by giving me free cable?FUCK their revenue stream.
Fix copyright and I'll respect that, otherwise they can fuck off.
Legalize and regulate marijuana and I'll respect those regulations, otherwise they can fuck off too.I'm not going to respect the disrespectable or the disrespectful.
WTF are these guys smoking, anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009476</id>
	<title>Qwest over Comcast for Internet</title>
	<author>agentc0re</author>
	<datestamp>1257500940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well for this "change" i am assuming he is talking purely about the Internet service they provide.  What they provide is shit and at high prices.  Recently in my area Qwest has placed their new "fiber optic" Internet.  Basically they have fiber to the CO and then copper(twisted pair) running to your house.  I get 20 down/5 Up($55mo).  I can go for a 40/5 but it's like $130 last i checked.  With DSL(VDSL to be exact) i don't have to worry so much about neighborhood usage effecting my speeds, but with comcrap i do.  I, probably like many others, switched because all i care about is a good Internet connection that offers good speeds bothways.  I don't watch much TV anyways, and haven't had cable for quite some time now.  The OTA channels are legal to record and so long as you aren't selling that recording you made, there is nothing wrong with redistributing that especially since it's Public Domain(or at least how i've come to understand it).<br><br>I've heard comcast is going to come out with some higher internet speeds, but the most they're ever going to get out of it is T3/D3 speeds and they can't offer that in whole to each customer in coax.  Their price needs to drop and every ISP needs to start buying more equipment to effectively be more than sufficient to handle a full load of all their users plus 1/3 extra(IE: more failovers and balancing).  Stop trying to limit peer to peer.  As i read in a prior post "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers".  I'm not saying you should allow theft, but like spam, someone will always find away around it.<br><br>If customers feel they are being taken advantage of and that you the company are stealing from them, they will steal from you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well for this " change " i am assuming he is talking purely about the Internet service they provide .
What they provide is shit and at high prices .
Recently in my area Qwest has placed their new " fiber optic " Internet .
Basically they have fiber to the CO and then copper ( twisted pair ) running to your house .
I get 20 down/5 Up ( $ 55mo ) .
I can go for a 40/5 but it 's like $ 130 last i checked .
With DSL ( VDSL to be exact ) i do n't have to worry so much about neighborhood usage effecting my speeds , but with comcrap i do .
I , probably like many others , switched because all i care about is a good Internet connection that offers good speeds bothways .
I do n't watch much TV anyways , and have n't had cable for quite some time now .
The OTA channels are legal to record and so long as you are n't selling that recording you made , there is nothing wrong with redistributing that especially since it 's Public Domain ( or at least how i 've come to understand it ) .I 've heard comcast is going to come out with some higher internet speeds , but the most they 're ever going to get out of it is T3/D3 speeds and they ca n't offer that in whole to each customer in coax .
Their price needs to drop and every ISP needs to start buying more equipment to effectively be more than sufficient to handle a full load of all their users plus 1/3 extra ( IE : more failovers and balancing ) .
Stop trying to limit peer to peer .
As i read in a prior post " The more you tighten your grip , Tarkin , the more star systems will slip through your fingers " .
I 'm not saying you should allow theft , but like spam , someone will always find away around it.If customers feel they are being taken advantage of and that you the company are stealing from them , they will steal from you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well for this "change" i am assuming he is talking purely about the Internet service they provide.
What they provide is shit and at high prices.
Recently in my area Qwest has placed their new "fiber optic" Internet.
Basically they have fiber to the CO and then copper(twisted pair) running to your house.
I get 20 down/5 Up($55mo).
I can go for a 40/5 but it's like $130 last i checked.
With DSL(VDSL to be exact) i don't have to worry so much about neighborhood usage effecting my speeds, but with comcrap i do.
I, probably like many others, switched because all i care about is a good Internet connection that offers good speeds bothways.
I don't watch much TV anyways, and haven't had cable for quite some time now.
The OTA channels are legal to record and so long as you aren't selling that recording you made, there is nothing wrong with redistributing that especially since it's Public Domain(or at least how i've come to understand it).I've heard comcast is going to come out with some higher internet speeds, but the most they're ever going to get out of it is T3/D3 speeds and they can't offer that in whole to each customer in coax.
Their price needs to drop and every ISP needs to start buying more equipment to effectively be more than sufficient to handle a full load of all their users plus 1/3 extra(IE: more failovers and balancing).
Stop trying to limit peer to peer.
As i read in a prior post "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers".
I'm not saying you should allow theft, but like spam, someone will always find away around it.If customers feel they are being taken advantage of and that you the company are stealing from them, they will steal from you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008594</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1257540420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ummm, because people's time and money went into producing it.  Why should you be paid for whatever job you do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>ummm , because people 's time and money went into producing it .
Why should you be paid for whatever job you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ummm, because people's time and money went into producing it.
Why should you be paid for whatever job you do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013444</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1257595680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Dude--we don't have to give a reason.&nbsp; The free market = reality.&nbsp; It's *their* problem to figure out how to make money in the new reality.<br><br>In the final analysis, that's the truth.&nbsp; You don't have to see how it's going to happen.&nbsp; And theoretically, at least, they could all go out of business.<br><br>But do you really think so?</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude--we do n't have to give a reason.   The free market = reality.   It 's * their * problem to figure out how to make money in the new reality.In the final analysis , that 's the truth.   You do n't have to see how it 's going to happen.   And theoretically , at least , they could all go out of business.But do you really think so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude--we don't have to give a reason.  The free market = reality.  It's *their* problem to figure out how to make money in the new reality.In the final analysis, that's the truth.  You don't have to see how it's going to happen.  And theoretically, at least, they could all go out of business.But do you really think so?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008580</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1257540360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed.  The statement is just like a retail store manager saying "I wish people wouldn't shoplift so much".  The analogy also holds in that the vendor is trying to protect, and get people to pay for, something that used to be free.  Back in the day, there were decent water fountains in every public place, often in the same area as vending machines; then the soda bottlers realized they could bottle plain water and get people to pay the same price as for water plus flavoring, and water fountains started disappearing.  It wouldn't excuse shoplifting the bottled water; and the cable execs feel that you shouldn't be pirating secured materials even if you were used to watching it over-the-air for free.

I don't like it either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The statement is just like a retail store manager saying " I wish people would n't shoplift so much " .
The analogy also holds in that the vendor is trying to protect , and get people to pay for , something that used to be free .
Back in the day , there were decent water fountains in every public place , often in the same area as vending machines ; then the soda bottlers realized they could bottle plain water and get people to pay the same price as for water plus flavoring , and water fountains started disappearing .
It would n't excuse shoplifting the bottled water ; and the cable execs feel that you should n't be pirating secured materials even if you were used to watching it over-the-air for free .
I do n't like it either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The statement is just like a retail store manager saying "I wish people wouldn't shoplift so much".
The analogy also holds in that the vendor is trying to protect, and get people to pay for, something that used to be free.
Back in the day, there were decent water fountains in every public place, often in the same area as vending machines; then the soda bottlers realized they could bottle plain water and get people to pay the same price as for water plus flavoring, and water fountains started disappearing.
It wouldn't excuse shoplifting the bottled water; and the cable execs feel that you shouldn't be pirating secured materials even if you were used to watching it over-the-air for free.
I don't like it either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009292</id>
	<title>Re:"products that consumers will willingly pay for</title>
	<author>squallbsr</author>
	<datestamp>1257500100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>From the referenced article summary</em> <br>Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it "a huge success." Interestingly, they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam, and a smaller increase through Wiiware. They've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th.</p></div><p>Even though the average payment was $2.00, they still made a ton of money on the issue, even to the point of them calling it a huge success.  This says to me that the product was worth $2.00 to people, you can see a similar effect on the iPhone App Store...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the referenced article summary Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer , which was enough for 2D Boy to term it " a huge success .
" Interestingly , they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam , and a smaller increase through Wiiware .
They 've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th.Even though the average payment was $ 2.00 , they still made a ton of money on the issue , even to the point of them calling it a huge success .
This says to me that the product was worth $ 2.00 to people , you can see a similar effect on the iPhone App Store.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> From the referenced article summary Over 57,000 people took advantage of the offer, which was enough for 2D Boy to term it "a huge success.
" Interestingly, they also saw a significant increase in sales through Steam, and a smaller increase through Wiiware.
They've decided to extend the experiment until October 25th.Even though the average payment was $2.00, they still made a ton of money on the issue, even to the point of them calling it a huge success.
This says to me that the product was worth $2.00 to people, you can see a similar effect on the iPhone App Store...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009486</id>
	<title>ever hear of radio? television?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257500940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they beam their content FOR FREE onto the airwaves</p><p>they make money off of advertising</p><p>likewise, in the future, artists will connect to consumers directly, by giving away their media FOR FREE. then they get their income in ancillary streams: concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, advertising, promotion, specialized content, speakign engagements, toy product line tie ins, movie adapation deals, etc</p><p>NO. DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDED</p><p>and it is a COMPLETE fallacy that you need cash up front to make art. plenty toil in povery, plenty always will. they do it OUT OF LOVE FOR THE ART. and we the consumer will continue to pick a few out of obscurity and reward them with fame and riches. NO. DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDED</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they beam their content FOR FREE onto the airwavesthey make money off of advertisinglikewise , in the future , artists will connect to consumers directly , by giving away their media FOR FREE .
then they get their income in ancillary streams : concerts , the cinema house , pulp copies , advertising , promotion , specialized content , speakign engagements , toy product line tie ins , movie adapation deals , etcNO .
DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDEDand it is a COMPLETE fallacy that you need cash up front to make art .
plenty toil in povery , plenty always will .
they do it OUT OF LOVE FOR THE ART .
and we the consumer will continue to pick a few out of obscurity and reward them with fame and riches .
NO. DISTRIBUTOR .
NEEDED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they beam their content FOR FREE onto the airwavesthey make money off of advertisinglikewise, in the future, artists will connect to consumers directly, by giving away their media FOR FREE.
then they get their income in ancillary streams: concerts, the cinema house, pulp copies, advertising, promotion, specialized content, speakign engagements, toy product line tie ins, movie adapation deals, etcNO.
DISTRIBUTOR. NEEDEDand it is a COMPLETE fallacy that you need cash up front to make art.
plenty toil in povery, plenty always will.
they do it OUT OF LOVE FOR THE ART.
and we the consumer will continue to pick a few out of obscurity and reward them with fame and riches.
NO. DISTRIBUTOR.
NEEDED</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008616</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257540540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's completely orthogonal to the issue though. You are saying "I should not pay because I can't send to a high def device". I think the correct sentiment would be "I pay for the product, then hack it so that it works the way I want". As long as you aren't sharing it with others after that, reasonable people have no problem with the fact that you actually broke the DMCA. As far as any reasonable person is concerned you are simply exercising your right to view the material you licensed after taking it off the of plastic coaster it came on (which is all you actually bought). (Yes, purists will note that this is not actually legal). <br> <br>But, it certainly isn't reasonable to say "because I can't watch the official version on my high-def device I should just violate copyright completely and not pay".</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's completely orthogonal to the issue though .
You are saying " I should not pay because I ca n't send to a high def device " .
I think the correct sentiment would be " I pay for the product , then hack it so that it works the way I want " .
As long as you are n't sharing it with others after that , reasonable people have no problem with the fact that you actually broke the DMCA .
As far as any reasonable person is concerned you are simply exercising your right to view the material you licensed after taking it off the of plastic coaster it came on ( which is all you actually bought ) .
( Yes , purists will note that this is not actually legal ) .
But , it certainly is n't reasonable to say " because I ca n't watch the official version on my high-def device I should just violate copyright completely and not pay " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's completely orthogonal to the issue though.
You are saying "I should not pay because I can't send to a high def device".
I think the correct sentiment would be "I pay for the product, then hack it so that it works the way I want".
As long as you aren't sharing it with others after that, reasonable people have no problem with the fact that you actually broke the DMCA.
As far as any reasonable person is concerned you are simply exercising your right to view the material you licensed after taking it off the of plastic coaster it came on (which is all you actually bought).
(Yes, purists will note that this is not actually legal).
But, it certainly isn't reasonable to say "because I can't watch the official version on my high-def device I should just violate copyright completely and not pay".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008480</id>
	<title>A genius plan!</title>
	<author>AtomicDevice</author>
	<datestamp>1257539940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We need to convince consumers to not want free stuff, but in fact to pay for things that can be perfectly copied for free by anyone"<br> <br> seems pretty reasonable to me.  It's hard for me to think of a single group of people in all of history who actually <em>wanted</em> free stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We need to convince consumers to not want free stuff , but in fact to pay for things that can be perfectly copied for free by anyone " seems pretty reasonable to me .
It 's hard for me to think of a single group of people in all of history who actually wanted free stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We need to convince consumers to not want free stuff, but in fact to pay for things that can be perfectly copied for free by anyone"  seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's hard for me to think of a single group of people in all of history who actually wanted free stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009312</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257500160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I disagree.  There is iTunes/Amazon for music, Hulu for TV (*even* if they go to a subscription model), Netflix on demand for movies.</p></div><p>You honestly think Hulu is a good alternative for what's currently out there on bittorrent, usenet and god knows what?</p><p>Last I heard Hulu was still only accessible to people in the USA. I don't care who the culprits are. As long as the content industry refuses to make these services available globally, nothing has changed in my eyes.</p><p>One service that does get it is Crunchyroll. Their shows are available globally (as far as I know) in a timely fashion, with premium members gaining access to new episodes of series one week earlier than the rest. It's still not perfect, but I can live with that. I can NOT live with being treated like a second rank part of the audience by distribution cartels.</p><p>Another thing crunchyroll gets right is ease of use. From what I've seen of it, Hulu is a mess and specific series and episodes can be hard to find.</p><p>Unfortunately crunchyroll limit's itself to mainly anime so it's limited in it's offerings and will never be a big player. Also there is still the fact that not all anime series are available because not every publisher chooses to make a deal with it.</p><p>On bittorrent, irc and usenet I can find anything and everything that catches my interest. Services like Hulu and Crunchyroll will never be able to compete with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
There is iTunes/Amazon for music , Hulu for TV ( * even * if they go to a subscription model ) , Netflix on demand for movies.You honestly think Hulu is a good alternative for what 's currently out there on bittorrent , usenet and god knows what ? Last I heard Hulu was still only accessible to people in the USA .
I do n't care who the culprits are .
As long as the content industry refuses to make these services available globally , nothing has changed in my eyes.One service that does get it is Crunchyroll .
Their shows are available globally ( as far as I know ) in a timely fashion , with premium members gaining access to new episodes of series one week earlier than the rest .
It 's still not perfect , but I can live with that .
I can NOT live with being treated like a second rank part of the audience by distribution cartels.Another thing crunchyroll gets right is ease of use .
From what I 've seen of it , Hulu is a mess and specific series and episodes can be hard to find.Unfortunately crunchyroll limit 's itself to mainly anime so it 's limited in it 's offerings and will never be a big player .
Also there is still the fact that not all anime series are available because not every publisher chooses to make a deal with it.On bittorrent , irc and usenet I can find anything and everything that catches my interest .
Services like Hulu and Crunchyroll will never be able to compete with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
There is iTunes/Amazon for music, Hulu for TV (*even* if they go to a subscription model), Netflix on demand for movies.You honestly think Hulu is a good alternative for what's currently out there on bittorrent, usenet and god knows what?Last I heard Hulu was still only accessible to people in the USA.
I don't care who the culprits are.
As long as the content industry refuses to make these services available globally, nothing has changed in my eyes.One service that does get it is Crunchyroll.
Their shows are available globally (as far as I know) in a timely fashion, with premium members gaining access to new episodes of series one week earlier than the rest.
It's still not perfect, but I can live with that.
I can NOT live with being treated like a second rank part of the audience by distribution cartels.Another thing crunchyroll gets right is ease of use.
From what I've seen of it, Hulu is a mess and specific series and episodes can be hard to find.Unfortunately crunchyroll limit's itself to mainly anime so it's limited in it's offerings and will never be a big player.
Also there is still the fact that not all anime series are available because not every publisher chooses to make a deal with it.On bittorrent, irc and usenet I can find anything and everything that catches my interest.
Services like Hulu and Crunchyroll will never be able to compete with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008672</id>
	<title>Letter to Steve Burke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257540720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Steve,</p><p>Here's a good idea - follow the model of the MPAA - i'll tell you how that worked on my family,<br>We -used to- buy kids DVDs - thomas, bob the builder, wiggles etc.  Then I realised a few things<br>1. We sit through 5 minutes of crap that I can't fast forward.  The (very young) kids become restless<br>2. I eventually get an add with loud, aggressive music and flashing scenes that tell us we are thieves and steal cars etc. when we actually purchased the DVDs<br>3. The kids have now been tipped over the edge by the disturbing music/images in the "you steal cars" video<br>4. My wife and I are annoyed at being called thieves every time we watch a DVD<br>5. The DMCA was hammered up my backside so that I can't rip the DVDs legally to strip all of that crap</p><p>Now that's what I call a good business model - and that's how to treat a customer.<br>Good news is that the wife and I agreed to a solution and the kids asked why we don't buy the shiny covers anymore.</p><p>By the way, compulsory **** the RIAA/MPAA and any other lunatic organisation with a similar mindset.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Steve,Here 's a good idea - follow the model of the MPAA - i 'll tell you how that worked on my family,We -used to- buy kids DVDs - thomas , bob the builder , wiggles etc .
Then I realised a few things1 .
We sit through 5 minutes of crap that I ca n't fast forward .
The ( very young ) kids become restless2 .
I eventually get an add with loud , aggressive music and flashing scenes that tell us we are thieves and steal cars etc .
when we actually purchased the DVDs3 .
The kids have now been tipped over the edge by the disturbing music/images in the " you steal cars " video4 .
My wife and I are annoyed at being called thieves every time we watch a DVD5 .
The DMCA was hammered up my backside so that I ca n't rip the DVDs legally to strip all of that crapNow that 's what I call a good business model - and that 's how to treat a customer.Good news is that the wife and I agreed to a solution and the kids asked why we do n't buy the shiny covers anymore.By the way , compulsory * * * * the RIAA/MPAA and any other lunatic organisation with a similar mindset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Steve,Here's a good idea - follow the model of the MPAA - i'll tell you how that worked on my family,We -used to- buy kids DVDs - thomas, bob the builder, wiggles etc.
Then I realised a few things1.
We sit through 5 minutes of crap that I can't fast forward.
The (very young) kids become restless2.
I eventually get an add with loud, aggressive music and flashing scenes that tell us we are thieves and steal cars etc.
when we actually purchased the DVDs3.
The kids have now been tipped over the edge by the disturbing music/images in the "you steal cars" video4.
My wife and I are annoyed at being called thieves every time we watch a DVD5.
The DMCA was hammered up my backside so that I can't rip the DVDs legally to strip all of that crapNow that's what I call a good business model - and that's how to treat a customer.Good news is that the wife and I agreed to a solution and the kids asked why we don't buy the shiny covers anymore.By the way, compulsory **** the RIAA/MPAA and any other lunatic organisation with a similar mindset.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008410</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>JustinOpinion</author>
	<datestamp>1257539520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.</p></div><p>Whether true or not, it misses the point. Yes, people can be cheap... but people are also prone to frivolously spending money. The iTunes Music Store does well because people don't worry about spending a few dollars here or there, as long as it's damn convenient.<br> <br>

The problem with the conventional solutions to piracy (DRM, lock-in, monitoring, lawsuits) are that they makes the product <b>less</b> convenient. Distribution mechanisms and tools that emphasize convenience (e.g. Hulu.com, DVRs) are seeing rapid growth. People are even willing to watch commercials, as long as they start their show at a time of their own choosing, pause when necessary, and so on (convenience!).<br> <br>

Again, whether or not copyright infringement is moral or not is almost tangential: the fact is that people are doing it and will continue doing so. So pragmatically what matters is how to achieve a new, useful balance. Everything I've seen suggests that people are actually fully willing to pay for entertainment (whether directly through cash or indirectly through advertising) as long as you make it so simple and convenient and enjoyable that it's simply not worth their effort to seek-out the copyright-infringing copies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it.Whether true or not , it misses the point .
Yes , people can be cheap... but people are also prone to frivolously spending money .
The iTunes Music Store does well because people do n't worry about spending a few dollars here or there , as long as it 's damn convenient .
The problem with the conventional solutions to piracy ( DRM , lock-in , monitoring , lawsuits ) are that they makes the product less convenient .
Distribution mechanisms and tools that emphasize convenience ( e.g .
Hulu.com , DVRs ) are seeing rapid growth .
People are even willing to watch commercials , as long as they start their show at a time of their own choosing , pause when necessary , and so on ( convenience ! ) .
Again , whether or not copyright infringement is moral or not is almost tangential : the fact is that people are doing it and will continue doing so .
So pragmatically what matters is how to achieve a new , useful balance .
Everything I 've seen suggests that people are actually fully willing to pay for entertainment ( whether directly through cash or indirectly through advertising ) as long as you make it so simple and convenient and enjoyable that it 's simply not worth their effort to seek-out the copyright-infringing copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.Whether true or not, it misses the point.
Yes, people can be cheap... but people are also prone to frivolously spending money.
The iTunes Music Store does well because people don't worry about spending a few dollars here or there, as long as it's damn convenient.
The problem with the conventional solutions to piracy (DRM, lock-in, monitoring, lawsuits) are that they makes the product less convenient.
Distribution mechanisms and tools that emphasize convenience (e.g.
Hulu.com, DVRs) are seeing rapid growth.
People are even willing to watch commercials, as long as they start their show at a time of their own choosing, pause when necessary, and so on (convenience!).
Again, whether or not copyright infringement is moral or not is almost tangential: the fact is that people are doing it and will continue doing so.
So pragmatically what matters is how to achieve a new, useful balance.
Everything I've seen suggests that people are actually fully willing to pay for entertainment (whether directly through cash or indirectly through advertising) as long as you make it so simple and convenient and enjoyable that it's simply not worth their effort to seek-out the copyright-infringing copies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009428</id>
	<title>In this day and age...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257500700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this day and age, I would not do ONE thing that costs another man or woman their job! It's that simple.<br>If you think it sucks- fine! Don't buy it! If you don't have the scheckles to buy it, don't buy it!<br>Again, I wouldn't do ONE THING that constitutes theft, potentially endangering someone else's job in today's economy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this day and age , I would not do ONE thing that costs another man or woman their job !
It 's that simple.If you think it sucks- fine !
Do n't buy it !
If you do n't have the scheckles to buy it , do n't buy it ! Again , I would n't do ONE THING that constitutes theft , potentially endangering someone else 's job in today 's economy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this day and age, I would not do ONE thing that costs another man or woman their job!
It's that simple.If you think it sucks- fine!
Don't buy it!
If you don't have the scheckles to buy it, don't buy it!Again, I wouldn't do ONE THING that constitutes theft, potentially endangering someone else's job in today's economy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008490</id>
	<title>Re:He's right</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1257540000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was a kid TV was free to the consumer, being paid for by advertising revenue.  The subscription model is, relatively speaking, the "new thing".  TV survived a long time with the add supported model.  Now I do pay for cable, mostly for the larger variety of channels to choose from but also because cable doesn't get all snowy when the weather is bad and I don't have to have a big antenna tower on my roof to pick up the signal.  That said, once I've paid for it I do insist on the right to DVR so I can watch later and record and transfer to a mobile device so I can watch it elsewhere.  If I can't do that with what is delivered by the cable company I will find it elsewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a kid TV was free to the consumer , being paid for by advertising revenue .
The subscription model is , relatively speaking , the " new thing " .
TV survived a long time with the add supported model .
Now I do pay for cable , mostly for the larger variety of channels to choose from but also because cable does n't get all snowy when the weather is bad and I do n't have to have a big antenna tower on my roof to pick up the signal .
That said , once I 've paid for it I do insist on the right to DVR so I can watch later and record and transfer to a mobile device so I can watch it elsewhere .
If I ca n't do that with what is delivered by the cable company I will find it elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a kid TV was free to the consumer, being paid for by advertising revenue.
The subscription model is, relatively speaking, the "new thing".
TV survived a long time with the add supported model.
Now I do pay for cable, mostly for the larger variety of channels to choose from but also because cable doesn't get all snowy when the weather is bad and I don't have to have a big antenna tower on my roof to pick up the signal.
That said, once I've paid for it I do insist on the right to DVR so I can watch later and record and transfer to a mobile device so I can watch it elsewhere.
If I can't do that with what is delivered by the cable company I will find it elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009902</id>
	<title>Re:Of course we'll see a shift</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257502740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Gilligan's Island reboot would be awesome.  To make it dark and edgy we could change it up a bit.  Instead of friends make them all strangers that don't trust each other.  Put in some sci-fi themes like time travel and smoke monsters.  And, get J.J. Abrams to do it.  Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Gilligan 's Island reboot would be awesome .
To make it dark and edgy we could change it up a bit .
Instead of friends make them all strangers that do n't trust each other .
Put in some sci-fi themes like time travel and smoke monsters .
And , get J.J. Abrams to do it .
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Gilligan's Island reboot would be awesome.
To make it dark and edgy we could change it up a bit.
Instead of friends make them all strangers that don't trust each other.
Put in some sci-fi themes like time travel and smoke monsters.
And, get J.J. Abrams to do it.
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009562</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement-CEOs wants command market</title>
	<author>PB8</author>
	<datestamp>1257501180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just Comcast.  Time-Warner and Charter are getting in their hits against their subscribing citizens as well.<br><br>Time-Warner's idea of great telephone service is responding within 1 business day to a customer reporting phone outage.<br>I recall AT&amp;T being out in 2 to 4 hours, rain or shine, weekends included.<br><br>Time-Warner is also clearing out the unwanted waste from their bandwith, of stuff like like PBS, BBC news, and Dr. Who.<br>This makes room for HNN, more on-demand channels, more FOX channels, and of course HD home shopping channels<br>and, wait for it, more reality shows, from in multiple languages.  Because that's what the public is supposedly demanding.<br>Which must be why they already offer so many consumer-beloved 'paid-time' info-mercials and endless reruns.<br>Cable TV is become '1000' channels of mostly Hi-Def garbage.  I'm pricing antenna systems, etc.<br><br>Charter's latest assault 'committed' upon our fellow citizens is to require zipcodes appended to email IDs!<br>This change starts in 5 days, so get all your email lists, PayPal, banking, shopping and other web IDs updated!<br>No clue as to whether it's a 5 digit or 9 digit zip code number.  Or how linked to IP address, etc.<br>No attempt at an explanation of how this will stop spambots and other email delivered worms and virii.<br>No mention of how this will staunch the gloomy and fearsome spread of terrorism.  It's just declared good for us.<br><br>(Don't try invoicing Charter for the time and inconvenience this causes you, loss of companionship due to friends,<br>business associates and relatives reacting too slow to your change notice, and then suing in Small Claims court<br>for their non-payment.  That sort of thing is just another senseless attack on shareholder profits and CEO bonuses.)<br><br>Below is a snippet from their e-announcement to their precious, vulnerable user consumers:<br><br>v~v~v~v~v snip start v~v~v~v~v<br><br>Dear Charter High-Speed(R) Internet Customer,<br><br>
&nbsp; Your privacy and security when checking email through Charter.net is being<br>enhanced. Starting on November 11, your email login will include the zip code<br>from your service address, in addition to your email address and password.<br><br>
&nbsp; Charter is committed to maintaining your privacy, and this additional login<br>credential through Charter.net is just one more way to ensure its protection.<br><br>^~^~^~^~^ snip end ^~^~^~^~^<br><br>This has to be some lazy, pointy-haired managers idea to make tracking customers, advertising, and<br>marketing easier for them.  I'm not an expert, only 30 years in IT, but I see no security advantage in this.<br>I can see where eager shareholders might understand zip-codes but not Open ID or improving user options.<br><br>It's not enough these cable operators have combined forces to wage War on Net Neutrality, using carpet-bombing<br>of contributions to Congress, as well as seeking legislation enabling greater, longer, more invasive IP 'protection',<br>presuming their customers are all merciless IP thieves. Yes, we're utterly lacking in basic business appreciation,<br>devoid of any understanding and compassion for the real customers--the beleagured and oppressed classes of<br>dividend-deprived shareholders and bonus-starved CEOs.  Expect to be educated or be punished, with tasers and<br>the hammer of the law, if we dare stymie their business plans to profit mightily and righteously, as God (and Congress)<br>has entitled them.  I'm not sure Calvin or Luther or St. Thomas Aquinas would agree, but perhaps they are heeding<br>Saint Mammon.<br><br>We must cast off our blinders and see the light. The real 'customers' driving our 'free market' are not consumers.<br>That's so 1990s.  The primary customer is now the shareholder and CEO classes.  Pleasing them is now Job #1.<br>And all of us misguided citizen/consumers will have to get on board, to appreciate this essential business 'fact' of life,<br>or millions more jobs will have to die.   If they are the deliver service, then they feel they own our art and that we<br>must buy it from them, or else...or else...well, they're looking for the biggest stick they can find.  And, well,<br>I can't imagine anything more foolish than Congress trying to enforce an IP Prohibition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just Comcast .
Time-Warner and Charter are getting in their hits against their subscribing citizens as well.Time-Warner 's idea of great telephone service is responding within 1 business day to a customer reporting phone outage.I recall AT&amp;T being out in 2 to 4 hours , rain or shine , weekends included.Time-Warner is also clearing out the unwanted waste from their bandwith , of stuff like like PBS , BBC news , and Dr. Who.This makes room for HNN , more on-demand channels , more FOX channels , and of course HD home shopping channelsand , wait for it , more reality shows , from in multiple languages .
Because that 's what the public is supposedly demanding.Which must be why they already offer so many consumer-beloved 'paid-time ' info-mercials and endless reruns.Cable TV is become '1000 ' channels of mostly Hi-Def garbage .
I 'm pricing antenna systems , etc.Charter 's latest assault 'committed ' upon our fellow citizens is to require zipcodes appended to email IDs ! This change starts in 5 days , so get all your email lists , PayPal , banking , shopping and other web IDs updated ! No clue as to whether it 's a 5 digit or 9 digit zip code number .
Or how linked to IP address , etc.No attempt at an explanation of how this will stop spambots and other email delivered worms and virii.No mention of how this will staunch the gloomy and fearsome spread of terrorism .
It 's just declared good for us .
( Do n't try invoicing Charter for the time and inconvenience this causes you , loss of companionship due to friends,business associates and relatives reacting too slow to your change notice , and then suing in Small Claims courtfor their non-payment .
That sort of thing is just another senseless attack on shareholder profits and CEO bonuses .
) Below is a snippet from their e-announcement to their precious , vulnerable user consumers : v ~ v ~ v ~ v ~ v snip start v ~ v ~ v ~ v ~ vDear Charter High-Speed ( R ) Internet Customer ,   Your privacy and security when checking email through Charter.net is beingenhanced .
Starting on November 11 , your email login will include the zip codefrom your service address , in addition to your email address and password .
  Charter is committed to maintaining your privacy , and this additional logincredential through Charter.net is just one more way to ensure its protection. ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ snip end ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ This has to be some lazy , pointy-haired managers idea to make tracking customers , advertising , andmarketing easier for them .
I 'm not an expert , only 30 years in IT , but I see no security advantage in this.I can see where eager shareholders might understand zip-codes but not Open ID or improving user options.It 's not enough these cable operators have combined forces to wage War on Net Neutrality , using carpet-bombingof contributions to Congress , as well as seeking legislation enabling greater , longer , more invasive IP 'protection',presuming their customers are all merciless IP thieves .
Yes , we 're utterly lacking in basic business appreciation,devoid of any understanding and compassion for the real customers--the beleagured and oppressed classes ofdividend-deprived shareholders and bonus-starved CEOs .
Expect to be educated or be punished , with tasers andthe hammer of the law , if we dare stymie their business plans to profit mightily and righteously , as God ( and Congress ) has entitled them .
I 'm not sure Calvin or Luther or St. Thomas Aquinas would agree , but perhaps they are heedingSaint Mammon.We must cast off our blinders and see the light .
The real 'customers ' driving our 'free market ' are not consumers.That 's so 1990s .
The primary customer is now the shareholder and CEO classes .
Pleasing them is now Job # 1.And all of us misguided citizen/consumers will have to get on board , to appreciate this essential business 'fact ' of life,or millions more jobs will have to die .
If they are the deliver service , then they feel they own our art and that wemust buy it from them , or else...or else...well , they 're looking for the biggest stick they can find .
And , well,I ca n't imagine anything more foolish than Congress trying to enforce an IP Prohibition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just Comcast.
Time-Warner and Charter are getting in their hits against their subscribing citizens as well.Time-Warner's idea of great telephone service is responding within 1 business day to a customer reporting phone outage.I recall AT&amp;T being out in 2 to 4 hours, rain or shine, weekends included.Time-Warner is also clearing out the unwanted waste from their bandwith, of stuff like like PBS, BBC news, and Dr. Who.This makes room for HNN, more on-demand channels, more FOX channels, and of course HD home shopping channelsand, wait for it, more reality shows, from in multiple languages.
Because that's what the public is supposedly demanding.Which must be why they already offer so many consumer-beloved 'paid-time' info-mercials and endless reruns.Cable TV is become '1000' channels of mostly Hi-Def garbage.
I'm pricing antenna systems, etc.Charter's latest assault 'committed' upon our fellow citizens is to require zipcodes appended to email IDs!This change starts in 5 days, so get all your email lists, PayPal, banking, shopping and other web IDs updated!No clue as to whether it's a 5 digit or 9 digit zip code number.
Or how linked to IP address, etc.No attempt at an explanation of how this will stop spambots and other email delivered worms and virii.No mention of how this will staunch the gloomy and fearsome spread of terrorism.
It's just declared good for us.
(Don't try invoicing Charter for the time and inconvenience this causes you, loss of companionship due to friends,business associates and relatives reacting too slow to your change notice, and then suing in Small Claims courtfor their non-payment.
That sort of thing is just another senseless attack on shareholder profits and CEO bonuses.
)Below is a snippet from their e-announcement to their precious, vulnerable user consumers:v~v~v~v~v snip start v~v~v~v~vDear Charter High-Speed(R) Internet Customer,
  Your privacy and security when checking email through Charter.net is beingenhanced.
Starting on November 11, your email login will include the zip codefrom your service address, in addition to your email address and password.
  Charter is committed to maintaining your privacy, and this additional logincredential through Charter.net is just one more way to ensure its protection.^~^~^~^~^ snip end ^~^~^~^~^This has to be some lazy, pointy-haired managers idea to make tracking customers, advertising, andmarketing easier for them.
I'm not an expert, only 30 years in IT, but I see no security advantage in this.I can see where eager shareholders might understand zip-codes but not Open ID or improving user options.It's not enough these cable operators have combined forces to wage War on Net Neutrality, using carpet-bombingof contributions to Congress, as well as seeking legislation enabling greater, longer, more invasive IP 'protection',presuming their customers are all merciless IP thieves.
Yes, we're utterly lacking in basic business appreciation,devoid of any understanding and compassion for the real customers--the beleagured and oppressed classes ofdividend-deprived shareholders and bonus-starved CEOs.
Expect to be educated or be punished, with tasers andthe hammer of the law, if we dare stymie their business plans to profit mightily and righteously, as God (and Congress)has entitled them.
I'm not sure Calvin or Luther or St. Thomas Aquinas would agree, but perhaps they are heedingSaint Mammon.We must cast off our blinders and see the light.
The real 'customers' driving our 'free market' are not consumers.That's so 1990s.
The primary customer is now the shareholder and CEO classes.
Pleasing them is now Job #1.And all of us misguided citizen/consumers will have to get on board, to appreciate this essential business 'fact' of life,or millions more jobs will have to die.
If they are the deliver service, then they feel they own our art and that wemust buy it from them, or else...or else...well, they're looking for the biggest stick they can find.
And, well,I can't imagine anything more foolish than Congress trying to enforce an IP Prohibition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008772</id>
	<title>Re:Just release TV shows for free</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1257541080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monty Python did live shows. They even toured Germany and did their own sketches in german.</p><p>The point is the distributors role is *over*. Why not make the first few free funded by venture capital and then let people subscribe to the show (low price) instead of a channel earning back the money and hopefully turning a profit. Perhaps also make low quality verisons with ads spliced in available for non-subscribers to get them hooked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monty Python did live shows .
They even toured Germany and did their own sketches in german.The point is the distributors role is * over * .
Why not make the first few free funded by venture capital and then let people subscribe to the show ( low price ) instead of a channel earning back the money and hopefully turning a profit .
Perhaps also make low quality verisons with ads spliced in available for non-subscribers to get them hooked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monty Python did live shows.
They even toured Germany and did their own sketches in german.The point is the distributors role is *over*.
Why not make the first few free funded by venture capital and then let people subscribe to the show (low price) instead of a channel earning back the money and hopefully turning a profit.
Perhaps also make low quality verisons with ads spliced in available for non-subscribers to get them hooked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011288</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257511860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because the content creators and the distributors are owned by the same parent companies? You only think there's a distinction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because the content creators and the distributors are owned by the same parent companies ?
You only think there 's a distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because the content creators and the distributors are owned by the same parent companies?
You only think there's a distinction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008276</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Captain Centropyge</author>
	<datestamp>1257538980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your points are valid.  However, as I mentioned twice below, these execs are finding piracy a problem because they're not providing the customers with the way they want to use their content.  Downloading, copying, etc., along with pricing, a la carte programming, and more.  These are the things people want.  You give people what they want in a convenient package and you'll get rich (unless it's free...).  But no, they are trying to force us consumers to fit what THEY want, which doesn't sit that well with us.  Therefore, people just find alternate ways to take what they want.  Until they start making things even more convenient, customizable, or reasonably priced, people will buck their system and they'll just try even harder to beat us into submission.  Not the best way to get on your customers' good sides, you know..?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your points are valid .
However , as I mentioned twice below , these execs are finding piracy a problem because they 're not providing the customers with the way they want to use their content .
Downloading , copying , etc. , along with pricing , a la carte programming , and more .
These are the things people want .
You give people what they want in a convenient package and you 'll get rich ( unless it 's free... ) .
But no , they are trying to force us consumers to fit what THEY want , which does n't sit that well with us .
Therefore , people just find alternate ways to take what they want .
Until they start making things even more convenient , customizable , or reasonably priced , people will buck their system and they 'll just try even harder to beat us into submission .
Not the best way to get on your customers ' good sides , you know.. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your points are valid.
However, as I mentioned twice below, these execs are finding piracy a problem because they're not providing the customers with the way they want to use their content.
Downloading, copying, etc., along with pricing, a la carte programming, and more.
These are the things people want.
You give people what they want in a convenient package and you'll get rich (unless it's free...).
But no, they are trying to force us consumers to fit what THEY want, which doesn't sit that well with us.
Therefore, people just find alternate ways to take what they want.
Until they start making things even more convenient, customizable, or reasonably priced, people will buck their system and they'll just try even harder to beat us into submission.
Not the best way to get on your customers' good sides, you know..?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009668</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257501780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it. If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it. It's quite simple. "</p><p>Yes there is.  If your suggestion is to not buy it and don't consume it, then they never got my money.  They didn't lose anything.  Now, if I go to joe blow's torrent site and download it from other people, that still hasn't cost them anything extra.  Either way, they aren't getting my money because they aren't providing the service I want.  If they let me pay what I wanted to, they would have seen more money than if they don't.</p><p>This is digital abundance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post\_scarcity#Digital\_abundance).  Digital abundance ultimately means that the only way anyone can make money off of it is a donor-based economy (see: Magnatunes).  You clearly do not know what digital abundance is, so yes, you are an astroturfing shill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" On the other hand , there 's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something , simply because you do n't like the price of it .
If you do n't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered , then do n't buy it .
It 's quite simple .
" Yes there is .
If your suggestion is to not buy it and do n't consume it , then they never got my money .
They did n't lose anything .
Now , if I go to joe blow 's torrent site and download it from other people , that still has n't cost them anything extra .
Either way , they are n't getting my money because they are n't providing the service I want .
If they let me pay what I wanted to , they would have seen more money than if they do n't.This is digital abundance ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post \ _scarcity # Digital \ _abundance ) .
Digital abundance ultimately means that the only way anyone can make money off of it is a donor-based economy ( see : Magnatunes ) .
You clearly do not know what digital abundance is , so yes , you are an astroturfing shill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"On the other hand, there's no real ethical or legal excuse for pirating something, simply because you don't like the price of it.
If you don't like the quality of the offering at the price it is offered, then don't buy it.
It's quite simple.
"Yes there is.
If your suggestion is to not buy it and don't consume it, then they never got my money.
They didn't lose anything.
Now, if I go to joe blow's torrent site and download it from other people, that still hasn't cost them anything extra.
Either way, they aren't getting my money because they aren't providing the service I want.
If they let me pay what I wanted to, they would have seen more money than if they don't.This is digital abundance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post\_scarcity#Digital\_abundance).
Digital abundance ultimately means that the only way anyone can make money off of it is a donor-based economy (see: Magnatunes).
You clearly do not know what digital abundance is, so yes, you are an astroturfing shill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009242</id>
	<title>On Demand</title>
	<author>plazman30</author>
	<datestamp>1257499920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people really want it on-demand television.  No more channels, just menus of shows to pick from.  Haven't DVRs proven that.  The only people that seem to get that are the fine folks at Apple, that are working on a subscription service for the TV portion of the iTunes Music Store.</p><p>Heck, Hulu was awesome for that.  And it took off.  Now they want to charge for it.  Entertainment execs still don't get it.</p><p>As you raise prices and gouge consumers, people starting downloading illegally.  When you make things more reasonable, like Amazon and Apple did with music, then people come flocking and making money.</p><p>Any belief that people are ignoring copyright now, when they didn't before is folly.  If people could have copied LPs back in the 50s, they would have done so.  Technology has finally caught up with desire.  That's all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people really want it on-demand television .
No more channels , just menus of shows to pick from .
Have n't DVRs proven that .
The only people that seem to get that are the fine folks at Apple , that are working on a subscription service for the TV portion of the iTunes Music Store.Heck , Hulu was awesome for that .
And it took off .
Now they want to charge for it .
Entertainment execs still do n't get it.As you raise prices and gouge consumers , people starting downloading illegally .
When you make things more reasonable , like Amazon and Apple did with music , then people come flocking and making money.Any belief that people are ignoring copyright now , when they did n't before is folly .
If people could have copied LPs back in the 50s , they would have done so .
Technology has finally caught up with desire .
That 's all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people really want it on-demand television.
No more channels, just menus of shows to pick from.
Haven't DVRs proven that.
The only people that seem to get that are the fine folks at Apple, that are working on a subscription service for the TV portion of the iTunes Music Store.Heck, Hulu was awesome for that.
And it took off.
Now they want to charge for it.
Entertainment execs still don't get it.As you raise prices and gouge consumers, people starting downloading illegally.
When you make things more reasonable, like Amazon and Apple did with music, then people come flocking and making money.Any belief that people are ignoring copyright now, when they didn't before is folly.
If people could have copied LPs back in the 50s, they would have done so.
Technology has finally caught up with desire.
That's all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009572</id>
	<title>Re:Entitlement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257501240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even most pirates agree that creators have to be paid somehow, but treating content like goods is the wrong way to do that. If you have spent a lot of time making something without inherent value, and haven't already been compensated, then you have been working for free.</p><p>What you should do instead is charge for your effort like a service. Imagine that you have discovered a band that you really like, go to their website but find that they won't make more music without money. There is a donate button and they clearly say how much time of a dollar will buy. I imagine that most people would actually pay some amount.</p><p>This is how it would work in principle. Producers are paid directly for their work, consumers pay no more than they want to. Seems like the Right Way to me, but I'd love to hear objections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even most pirates agree that creators have to be paid somehow , but treating content like goods is the wrong way to do that .
If you have spent a lot of time making something without inherent value , and have n't already been compensated , then you have been working for free.What you should do instead is charge for your effort like a service .
Imagine that you have discovered a band that you really like , go to their website but find that they wo n't make more music without money .
There is a donate button and they clearly say how much time of a dollar will buy .
I imagine that most people would actually pay some amount.This is how it would work in principle .
Producers are paid directly for their work , consumers pay no more than they want to .
Seems like the Right Way to me , but I 'd love to hear objections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even most pirates agree that creators have to be paid somehow, but treating content like goods is the wrong way to do that.
If you have spent a lot of time making something without inherent value, and haven't already been compensated, then you have been working for free.What you should do instead is charge for your effort like a service.
Imagine that you have discovered a band that you really like, go to their website but find that they won't make more music without money.
There is a donate button and they clearly say how much time of a dollar will buy.
I imagine that most people would actually pay some amount.This is how it would work in principle.
Producers are paid directly for their work, consumers pay no more than they want to.
Seems like the Right Way to me, but I'd love to hear objections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010834</id>
	<title>Re:Just release TV shows for free</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1257507900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we all know there will be some changes when it becomes legal to fileshare non commercially (why yes! I AM an optimistic supporter of the pirate party=)) but here is an idea that might work (the idea obviously needs refining)</p><p>A production company would produce a pilot like usual but instead of marketing it to whoever it is they are marketing towards now they market it directly to the viewers.<br>A budget will be released and people can promise (with the force of contract law) to pay an amount of their choosing.<br>Companies could also sponsor for the return of some product placement<br>If they get enough money within some agreed upon time limit they will make the series and otherwise the peoples promises will be rescinded(or their money returned or however it would work in practice)</p><p>I think this could work... at least for some. Production companies may have to make do with smaller budgets depending on how willing/unwilling people are to part with their money and essentially pay for everybody who didn't pay to also watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all know there will be some changes when it becomes legal to fileshare non commercially ( why yes !
I AM an optimistic supporter of the pirate party = ) ) but here is an idea that might work ( the idea obviously needs refining ) A production company would produce a pilot like usual but instead of marketing it to whoever it is they are marketing towards now they market it directly to the viewers.A budget will be released and people can promise ( with the force of contract law ) to pay an amount of their choosing.Companies could also sponsor for the return of some product placementIf they get enough money within some agreed upon time limit they will make the series and otherwise the peoples promises will be rescinded ( or their money returned or however it would work in practice ) I think this could work... at least for some .
Production companies may have to make do with smaller budgets depending on how willing/unwilling people are to part with their money and essentially pay for everybody who did n't pay to also watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all know there will be some changes when it becomes legal to fileshare non commercially (why yes!
I AM an optimistic supporter of the pirate party=)) but here is an idea that might work (the idea obviously needs refining)A production company would produce a pilot like usual but instead of marketing it to whoever it is they are marketing towards now they market it directly to the viewers.A budget will be released and people can promise (with the force of contract law) to pay an amount of their choosing.Companies could also sponsor for the return of some product placementIf they get enough money within some agreed upon time limit they will make the series and otherwise the peoples promises will be rescinded(or their money returned or however it would work in practice)I think this could work... at least for some.
Production companies may have to make do with smaller budgets depending on how willing/unwilling people are to part with their money and essentially pay for everybody who didn't pay to also watch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013960</id>
	<title>Re:Watch when you want to watch</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1257604500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm too busy to schedule programs. I need to watch when I have time to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm too busy to schedule programs .
I need to watch when I have time to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm too busy to schedule programs.
I need to watch when I have time to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008874</id>
	<title>Re:It's both</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257498360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for, say, a movie?</i></p><p>Because it costs money to make the movie.  If you don't want to pay don't watch it.  At the same tyme copyrights shouldn't be nearly as long as they are.  The reasons copyrights exist is to encourage creation of works of art.  Artists can't create any more art after they're dead.  Heck just having copyrights last until death does nothing to encourage more creations.  You encourage more by reducing the length of copyrights not making them longer.  The shorter they are the more people will have to create to keep making money.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for , say , a movie ? Because it costs money to make the movie .
If you do n't want to pay do n't watch it .
At the same tyme copyrights should n't be nearly as long as they are .
The reasons copyrights exist is to encourage creation of works of art .
Artists ca n't create any more art after they 're dead .
Heck just having copyrights last until death does nothing to encourage more creations .
You encourage more by reducing the length of copyrights not making them longer .
The shorter they are the more people will have to create to keep making money .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is the ethical reason one should expect to be paid for, say, a movie?Because it costs money to make the movie.
If you don't want to pay don't watch it.
At the same tyme copyrights shouldn't be nearly as long as they are.
The reasons copyrights exist is to encourage creation of works of art.
Artists can't create any more art after they're dead.
Heck just having copyrights last until death does nothing to encourage more creations.
You encourage more by reducing the length of copyrights not making them longer.
The shorter they are the more people will have to create to keep making money.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008782</id>
	<title>All's Fair....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257541140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The door swings both ways.<br>Cable companies need to stop ripping off their customers with bloated rates. Entertainment companies need to put out good material.<br>By the same token, people who steal lots of material need to go to jail; not get fined, go to REAL JAIL!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The door swings both ways.Cable companies need to stop ripping off their customers with bloated rates .
Entertainment companies need to put out good material.By the same token , people who steal lots of material need to go to jail ; not get fined , go to REAL JAIL ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The door swings both ways.Cable companies need to stop ripping off their customers with bloated rates.
Entertainment companies need to put out good material.By the same token, people who steal lots of material need to go to jail; not get fined, go to REAL JAIL!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30019060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30007968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_06_1639252_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008570
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30012194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30011404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009150
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30013444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30019060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30010076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30007968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30009414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_06_1639252.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_06_1639252.30008830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
