<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_04_1443205</id>
	<title>Why Movies Are Not Exactly Like Music</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259938500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ars digs into the proposition that <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/hollywoods-plan-to-keep-prices-high-as-movies-go-digitaland-why-it-just-might-work.ars/1">movies will go the way of the music business</a>, and finds some reasons not to be totally gloomy about Hollywood's immediate future. For one thing, the movie biz managed to introduce a next-generation format to follow the DVD, a trick that eluded the music crowd (anyone remember DVD-Audio? SACD?). Blu-ray isn't making up the gap as DVD sales fall, but it is slowing the revenue decline. Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" &mdash; unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted. Ars concludes: "The movie business is facing many of the same challenges that are bedeviling music, but it's not about to go quietly into that good night &mdash; and it may not have to."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars digs into the proposition that movies will go the way of the music business , and finds some reasons not to be totally gloomy about Hollywood 's immediate future .
For one thing , the movie biz managed to introduce a next-generation format to follow the DVD , a trick that eluded the music crowd ( anyone remember DVD-Audio ?
SACD ? ) . Blu-ray is n't making up the gap as DVD sales fall , but it is slowing the revenue decline .
Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies are n't amenable to " disaggregation "    unlike CDs , which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted .
Ars concludes : " The movie business is facing many of the same challenges that are bedeviling music , but it 's not about to go quietly into that good night    and it may not have to .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars digs into the proposition that movies will go the way of the music business, and finds some reasons not to be totally gloomy about Hollywood's immediate future.
For one thing, the movie biz managed to introduce a next-generation format to follow the DVD, a trick that eluded the music crowd (anyone remember DVD-Audio?
SACD?). Blu-ray isn't making up the gap as DVD sales fall, but it is slowing the revenue decline.
Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" — unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.
Ars concludes: "The movie business is facing many of the same challenges that are bedeviling music, but it's not about to go quietly into that good night — and it may not have to.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748</id>
	<title>DVD Sales Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DVDs sales are going down, but some of that gap is Amazon Unbox, Netflix, iTunes, DVRs, Hulu, etc.</p><p>The movie industry gets paid from all of these sources (including DVRs in that movie companies are paid to air movies on cable).</p><p>BluRay sales aren't huge because some retailers keep insisting on charging $35 for BluRay movies. We all know the cost of the disc is minimal. Amazon can sell BluRays for $10-$20. I'm not going to pay $35 for a movie, and I'm not alone on that issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DVDs sales are going down , but some of that gap is Amazon Unbox , Netflix , iTunes , DVRs , Hulu , etc.The movie industry gets paid from all of these sources ( including DVRs in that movie companies are paid to air movies on cable ) .BluRay sales are n't huge because some retailers keep insisting on charging $ 35 for BluRay movies .
We all know the cost of the disc is minimal .
Amazon can sell BluRays for $ 10- $ 20 .
I 'm not going to pay $ 35 for a movie , and I 'm not alone on that issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DVDs sales are going down, but some of that gap is Amazon Unbox, Netflix, iTunes, DVRs, Hulu, etc.The movie industry gets paid from all of these sources (including DVRs in that movie companies are paid to air movies on cable).BluRay sales aren't huge because some retailers keep insisting on charging $35 for BluRay movies.
We all know the cost of the disc is minimal.
Amazon can sell BluRays for $10-$20.
I'm not going to pay $35 for a movie, and I'm not alone on that issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324904</id>
	<title>Re:I can only hope</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259947740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;I wonder if this is the end of the golden age for Hollywood</p><p>More like the end of the silver age.   The golden age ended circa 1950 when people could stay-at-home and watch entertainment on the TV, rather than drive to the theater.  There was a lot of bankruptcy during this period, and even the mighty MGM succumbed.  This was Hollywood's silver age.</p><p>And now people can watch entertainment on the net for virtually nothing, and whenever they feel like it.  We are moving into Hollywood's bronze age where they will just barely hang-on, and become almost non-relevant.  Kinda like Neaderthal during his last few years... out-competed by a newer, more flexible regime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; I wonder if this is the end of the golden age for HollywoodMore like the end of the silver age .
The golden age ended circa 1950 when people could stay-at-home and watch entertainment on the TV , rather than drive to the theater .
There was a lot of bankruptcy during this period , and even the mighty MGM succumbed .
This was Hollywood 's silver age.And now people can watch entertainment on the net for virtually nothing , and whenever they feel like it .
We are moving into Hollywood 's bronze age where they will just barely hang-on , and become almost non-relevant .
Kinda like Neaderthal during his last few years... out-competed by a newer , more flexible regime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;I wonder if this is the end of the golden age for HollywoodMore like the end of the silver age.
The golden age ended circa 1950 when people could stay-at-home and watch entertainment on the TV, rather than drive to the theater.
There was a lot of bankruptcy during this period, and even the mighty MGM succumbed.
This was Hollywood's silver age.And now people can watch entertainment on the net for virtually nothing, and whenever they feel like it.
We are moving into Hollywood's bronze age where they will just barely hang-on, and become almost non-relevant.
Kinda like Neaderthal during his last few years... out-competed by a newer, more flexible regime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327348</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1259957760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once.</i> You obviously don't have children. Children who will download a movie, then watch it three times in immediate succession, then demand to do the same thing again the next day. I believe the success of the Pixar movies is due to the fact that parents don't pull their hair out and scream they'll never buy another movie again after the 12th time of being subjected to one. (Monsters Inc., surprisingly, bears repeated viewing quite well.) For my child, a movie IS just like a song and just like a music video, only longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once .
You obviously do n't have children .
Children who will download a movie , then watch it three times in immediate succession , then demand to do the same thing again the next day .
I believe the success of the Pixar movies is due to the fact that parents do n't pull their hair out and scream they 'll never buy another movie again after the 12th time of being subjected to one .
( Monsters Inc. , surprisingly , bears repeated viewing quite well .
) For my child , a movie IS just like a song and just like a music video , only longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once.
You obviously don't have children.
Children who will download a movie, then watch it three times in immediate succession, then demand to do the same thing again the next day.
I believe the success of the Pixar movies is due to the fact that parents don't pull their hair out and scream they'll never buy another movie again after the 12th time of being subjected to one.
(Monsters Inc., surprisingly, bears repeated viewing quite well.
) For my child, a movie IS just like a song and just like a music video, only longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326382</id>
	<title>However</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BECAUSE you cannot break up a movie into smaller chunks like an album, the 2hour format will likely DIE giving way to more instant gratification in media like YOUTUBE, and online TV. I mean, do we really NEED 3 hours of 2012 ????</htmltext>
<tokenext>BECAUSE you can not break up a movie into smaller chunks like an album , the 2hour format will likely DIE giving way to more instant gratification in media like YOUTUBE , and online TV .
I mean , do we really NEED 3 hours of 2012 ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BECAUSE you cannot break up a movie into smaller chunks like an album, the 2hour format will likely DIE giving way to more instant gratification in media like YOUTUBE, and online TV.
I mean, do we really NEED 3 hours of 2012 ???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324232</id>
	<title>Fundamentally Different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Music and movies are fundamentally different. Aside from the obvious visual aspect, they are much longer, require that you pay attention, and get worse with each viewing.</p><p>How many people would put on Top Gun each morning when they get into work? How many people would actually pay attention to it after the fifth time that week? How many people wouldn't notice how cheesy the dialog and special affects are after subsequent viewings?</p><p>I suspect that if you were put into a PET scanner, entirely different portions of the brain would light up when watching a movie vs. listen to music.</p><p>So while music can be listened to over and over again with the same level of enjoyment, movies can't be watched over and over again...unless you are stoned.</p><p>I don't think movies are going to go the way of music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Music and movies are fundamentally different .
Aside from the obvious visual aspect , they are much longer , require that you pay attention , and get worse with each viewing.How many people would put on Top Gun each morning when they get into work ?
How many people would actually pay attention to it after the fifth time that week ?
How many people would n't notice how cheesy the dialog and special affects are after subsequent viewings ? I suspect that if you were put into a PET scanner , entirely different portions of the brain would light up when watching a movie vs. listen to music.So while music can be listened to over and over again with the same level of enjoyment , movies ca n't be watched over and over again...unless you are stoned.I do n't think movies are going to go the way of music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music and movies are fundamentally different.
Aside from the obvious visual aspect, they are much longer, require that you pay attention, and get worse with each viewing.How many people would put on Top Gun each morning when they get into work?
How many people would actually pay attention to it after the fifth time that week?
How many people wouldn't notice how cheesy the dialog and special affects are after subsequent viewings?I suspect that if you were put into a PET scanner, entirely different portions of the brain would light up when watching a movie vs. listen to music.So while music can be listened to over and over again with the same level of enjoyment, movies can't be watched over and over again...unless you are stoned.I don't think movies are going to go the way of music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.</p><p>Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.</p></div><p>Incorrect.</p><p>Completely wrong.</p><p>So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.</p><p>In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel.  There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing.  There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them.  And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.</p><p>To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.</p><p>Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate.  They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends.  They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.</p><p>But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids.  You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie.  They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing...  They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film...  They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available...  And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.</p><p>Then you've got movies with some real substance to them.  Things like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/" title="imdb.com">Pulp Fiction</a> [imdb.com].  Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it.  Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.</p><p>Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old.  This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences...  But I don't know how many times I've watched <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/" title="imdb.com">Alien</a> [imdb.com] or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092991/" title="imdb.com">Evil Dead II</a> [imdb.com] or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115819/" title="imdb.com">Cannibal: The Musical</a> [imdb.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once , and as soon as possible.Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists .
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases , rather than decreases , their desire to hear it.Incorrect.Completely wrong.So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.In a lot of ways , a movie is like a novel .
There are some you read through once , and then get rid of because they just are n't that amazing .
There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them .
And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once , and that they 're all basically disposable , is simply ignorant.Sure , if you 're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that 's probably accurate .
They 're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends .
They 'll go see it within days of the opening , they 'll see it once , and they wo n't even pay much attention to it.But then you 've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids .
You 've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie .
They 'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They 'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They 'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they 'll watch it over and over again , until the disc literally wears out.Then you 've got movies with some real substance to them .
Things like Pulp Fiction [ imdb.com ] .
Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it .
Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.Then there are the quality movies that just do n't get old .
This will , of course , vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I do n't know how many times I 've watched Alien [ imdb.com ] or Evil Dead II [ imdb.com ] or Cannibal : The Musical [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists.
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.Incorrect.Completely wrong.So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel.
There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing.
There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them.
And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate.
They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends.
They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids.
You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie.
They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing...  They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film...  They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available...  And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.Then you've got movies with some real substance to them.
Things like Pulp Fiction [imdb.com].
Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it.
Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old.
This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences...  But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien [imdb.com] or Evil Dead II [imdb.com] or Cannibal: The Musical [imdb.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324058</id>
	<title>Dissaggregation</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1259943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the disaggregation thing is the main key.  I haven't bought a physical CD in about 18 months.  In the past 4 years I've bought I think 3 of them - in those few cases the only reason was that it was a soundtrack (which I typically buy whole) and the purchase price was less than what the online album cost.</p><p>Other than that, on any given album I usually only want 1 song - definitely no more than 4.  Digital distribution lets me get only those songs that I want, enabling me to buy much more music.</p><p>I think a big part of it too though, is that music of a decent quality is much smaller in size.  Even using lossless compression most full albums would fit within 350MB - using still reasonable compression we're looking at 150MB per album (which we've already established that people usually don't want all of).  Compare to a movie - a crappy less-than-DVD quality copy that's been compressed all to hell is going to be at least 700MB.  A decent high definition movie is going to run 6+ GB.</p><p>The jist of that is that any decent sized hard drive will hold my entire music collection with room to spare, whilst even a 2TB hard drive would likely only hold half of my movie collection.  There's also the transfer speed issue.  While some people have faster connections, plenty of residential broadband connections are still in the 1Mbps to 6Mbps range.  That's lightning for downloading music.  Movies - particularly HD movies, still take a while on those connections though.</p><p>I think from a TECHNOLOGY standpoint, movies are just at the point where songs were 12 years ago.  They can be digitized and stored on a home computer, and some people are certainly doing it,  but space constraints and the like are going to keep people from making it their format of choice just yet. Heck I remember the first MP3 I downloaded.  "The Freshmen" by The Verve Pipe.  Took a good while to download on my modem and as someone who didn't even know what an MP3 was I didn't know why the hell the file was so big (I was actually searching for a MIDI copy of the song, which naturally is tiny by comparison).  After I got it (and tracked down a copy of Winamp to play the thing) I was shocked when I hit play and the actual song started playing - as I said I was expecting something more akin to MIDI.  Still, having only an 800MB hard drive with just one song being 5MB, I certainly didn't envision this being the way I'd prefer to get my music anytime soon.</p><p>That's the place I see movies at now.  The only reason we're seeing online film sales is that politically the industry has seen the success of music sales and are willing to experiment a bit more.  Once we start seeing 20+ Mbps connections in the home as the norm though, and are sporting 1 PB hard drives in our home machines, then I think we'll start seeing physical movie mediums die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the disaggregation thing is the main key .
I have n't bought a physical CD in about 18 months .
In the past 4 years I 've bought I think 3 of them - in those few cases the only reason was that it was a soundtrack ( which I typically buy whole ) and the purchase price was less than what the online album cost.Other than that , on any given album I usually only want 1 song - definitely no more than 4 .
Digital distribution lets me get only those songs that I want , enabling me to buy much more music.I think a big part of it too though , is that music of a decent quality is much smaller in size .
Even using lossless compression most full albums would fit within 350MB - using still reasonable compression we 're looking at 150MB per album ( which we 've already established that people usually do n't want all of ) .
Compare to a movie - a crappy less-than-DVD quality copy that 's been compressed all to hell is going to be at least 700MB .
A decent high definition movie is going to run 6 + GB.The jist of that is that any decent sized hard drive will hold my entire music collection with room to spare , whilst even a 2TB hard drive would likely only hold half of my movie collection .
There 's also the transfer speed issue .
While some people have faster connections , plenty of residential broadband connections are still in the 1Mbps to 6Mbps range .
That 's lightning for downloading music .
Movies - particularly HD movies , still take a while on those connections though.I think from a TECHNOLOGY standpoint , movies are just at the point where songs were 12 years ago .
They can be digitized and stored on a home computer , and some people are certainly doing it , but space constraints and the like are going to keep people from making it their format of choice just yet .
Heck I remember the first MP3 I downloaded .
" The Freshmen " by The Verve Pipe .
Took a good while to download on my modem and as someone who did n't even know what an MP3 was I did n't know why the hell the file was so big ( I was actually searching for a MIDI copy of the song , which naturally is tiny by comparison ) .
After I got it ( and tracked down a copy of Winamp to play the thing ) I was shocked when I hit play and the actual song started playing - as I said I was expecting something more akin to MIDI .
Still , having only an 800MB hard drive with just one song being 5MB , I certainly did n't envision this being the way I 'd prefer to get my music anytime soon.That 's the place I see movies at now .
The only reason we 're seeing online film sales is that politically the industry has seen the success of music sales and are willing to experiment a bit more .
Once we start seeing 20 + Mbps connections in the home as the norm though , and are sporting 1 PB hard drives in our home machines , then I think we 'll start seeing physical movie mediums die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the disaggregation thing is the main key.
I haven't bought a physical CD in about 18 months.
In the past 4 years I've bought I think 3 of them - in those few cases the only reason was that it was a soundtrack (which I typically buy whole) and the purchase price was less than what the online album cost.Other than that, on any given album I usually only want 1 song - definitely no more than 4.
Digital distribution lets me get only those songs that I want, enabling me to buy much more music.I think a big part of it too though, is that music of a decent quality is much smaller in size.
Even using lossless compression most full albums would fit within 350MB - using still reasonable compression we're looking at 150MB per album (which we've already established that people usually don't want all of).
Compare to a movie - a crappy less-than-DVD quality copy that's been compressed all to hell is going to be at least 700MB.
A decent high definition movie is going to run 6+ GB.The jist of that is that any decent sized hard drive will hold my entire music collection with room to spare, whilst even a 2TB hard drive would likely only hold half of my movie collection.
There's also the transfer speed issue.
While some people have faster connections, plenty of residential broadband connections are still in the 1Mbps to 6Mbps range.
That's lightning for downloading music.
Movies - particularly HD movies, still take a while on those connections though.I think from a TECHNOLOGY standpoint, movies are just at the point where songs were 12 years ago.
They can be digitized and stored on a home computer, and some people are certainly doing it,  but space constraints and the like are going to keep people from making it their format of choice just yet.
Heck I remember the first MP3 I downloaded.
"The Freshmen" by The Verve Pipe.
Took a good while to download on my modem and as someone who didn't even know what an MP3 was I didn't know why the hell the file was so big (I was actually searching for a MIDI copy of the song, which naturally is tiny by comparison).
After I got it (and tracked down a copy of Winamp to play the thing) I was shocked when I hit play and the actual song started playing - as I said I was expecting something more akin to MIDI.
Still, having only an 800MB hard drive with just one song being 5MB, I certainly didn't envision this being the way I'd prefer to get my music anytime soon.That's the place I see movies at now.
The only reason we're seeing online film sales is that politically the industry has seen the success of music sales and are willing to experiment a bit more.
Once we start seeing 20+ Mbps connections in the home as the norm though, and are sporting 1 PB hard drives in our home machines, then I think we'll start seeing physical movie mediums die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329436</id>
	<title>Re:Market segmentation</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1259923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sell it at different prices to different markets, that way everyone will pay what they consider it worth.  they intentionally reduce prices, so you're still paying the asking price.</p><p>A new release at $20 typically will have, day 1:<br>- people buying for face value<br>- employee discounts<br>- a special edition at $30 or more promised<br>- a retailer coupon to buy a movie, get another for some percent off<br>- a promotion at another retailer pushing that movie at a discounted price as a loss leader<br>- different prices (or different availability) in different geopolitical regions<br>- a higher price at the trendier stores near "high cost of living" type areas</p><p>Followed by any number of:<br>- official price drops<br>- used sales<br>- rentals<br>- more price drops<br>- buy 1 get 1 free retailer sales<br>- more coupons</p><p>You can see where I'm going with this.  They alter prices enough so that the target market self-differentiates to pay what they think it's worth.  The customer balances their need for instant gratification against their wallet and decides when is the right time to buy.</p><p>If they give it away in any form (free, free with purchase, bundled with something else) then you are still following their business model and making an effective purchase.  The moment you set the terms, when they are not yours to set, that is usually a violation of law.</p><p>You are selling your house, I talk you down $30,000 from your asking price.  I write you a check for $30,000 less than what we agreed upon.  You complain, but my response is that you seemed fine when I stole the first $30,000 from you, so history shows you're fine with being $30k short.  So I shorted you.  Would you tell me you see my point?</p><p>No you wouldn't, so quit being a dumbass on the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sell it at different prices to different markets , that way everyone will pay what they consider it worth .
they intentionally reduce prices , so you 're still paying the asking price.A new release at $ 20 typically will have , day 1 : - people buying for face value- employee discounts- a special edition at $ 30 or more promised- a retailer coupon to buy a movie , get another for some percent off- a promotion at another retailer pushing that movie at a discounted price as a loss leader- different prices ( or different availability ) in different geopolitical regions- a higher price at the trendier stores near " high cost of living " type areasFollowed by any number of : - official price drops- used sales- rentals- more price drops- buy 1 get 1 free retailer sales- more couponsYou can see where I 'm going with this .
They alter prices enough so that the target market self-differentiates to pay what they think it 's worth .
The customer balances their need for instant gratification against their wallet and decides when is the right time to buy.If they give it away in any form ( free , free with purchase , bundled with something else ) then you are still following their business model and making an effective purchase .
The moment you set the terms , when they are not yours to set , that is usually a violation of law.You are selling your house , I talk you down $ 30,000 from your asking price .
I write you a check for $ 30,000 less than what we agreed upon .
You complain , but my response is that you seemed fine when I stole the first $ 30,000 from you , so history shows you 're fine with being $ 30k short .
So I shorted you .
Would you tell me you see my point ? No you would n't , so quit being a dumbass on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sell it at different prices to different markets, that way everyone will pay what they consider it worth.
they intentionally reduce prices, so you're still paying the asking price.A new release at $20 typically will have, day 1:- people buying for face value- employee discounts- a special edition at $30 or more promised- a retailer coupon to buy a movie, get another for some percent off- a promotion at another retailer pushing that movie at a discounted price as a loss leader- different prices (or different availability) in different geopolitical regions- a higher price at the trendier stores near "high cost of living" type areasFollowed by any number of:- official price drops- used sales- rentals- more price drops- buy 1 get 1 free retailer sales- more couponsYou can see where I'm going with this.
They alter prices enough so that the target market self-differentiates to pay what they think it's worth.
The customer balances their need for instant gratification against their wallet and decides when is the right time to buy.If they give it away in any form (free, free with purchase, bundled with something else) then you are still following their business model and making an effective purchase.
The moment you set the terms, when they are not yours to set, that is usually a violation of law.You are selling your house, I talk you down $30,000 from your asking price.
I write you a check for $30,000 less than what we agreed upon.
You complain, but my response is that you seemed fine when I stole the first $30,000 from you, so history shows you're fine with being $30k short.
So I shorted you.
Would you tell me you see my point?No you wouldn't, so quit being a dumbass on the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30333158</id>
	<title>FREE!!! with HBO Free on Demand with DVR</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259955900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hollywood should pay me to watch their films!</p><p>To Point: I Got ATT U-verse about a year ago. FREE HBO, Ten channels of HBO! Plus, yada, yada, yada for 90 days. ATT includes a DVR. So, I recorded about ten FREE movies. FREE and LEGAL Movies. I am sure you know where I going with this.... How many of the those Free to watch anytime from DVR, FREE from HBO, also available free from 'HBO on DEMAND'.... FREE to watch anytime! None, not one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood should pay me to watch their films ! To Point : I Got ATT U-verse about a year ago .
FREE HBO , Ten channels of HBO !
Plus , yada , yada , yada for 90 days .
ATT includes a DVR .
So , I recorded about ten FREE movies .
FREE and LEGAL Movies .
I am sure you know where I going with this.... How many of the those Free to watch anytime from DVR , FREE from HBO , also available free from 'HBO on DEMAND'.... FREE to watch anytime !
None , not one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood should pay me to watch their films!To Point: I Got ATT U-verse about a year ago.
FREE HBO, Ten channels of HBO!
Plus, yada, yada, yada for 90 days.
ATT includes a DVR.
So, I recorded about ten FREE movies.
FREE and LEGAL Movies.
I am sure you know where I going with this.... How many of the those Free to watch anytime from DVR, FREE from HBO, also available free from 'HBO on DEMAND'.... FREE to watch anytime!
None, not one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326532</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>mypalmike</author>
	<datestamp>1259954400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorrect?  Completely wrong?</p><p>The popularity of DVD rentals (Netflix, Blockbuster, mom and pop) is proof that most people want to see a wide selection of movies exactly once.  You're pointing at outliers and calling it the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorrect ?
Completely wrong ? The popularity of DVD rentals ( Netflix , Blockbuster , mom and pop ) is proof that most people want to see a wide selection of movies exactly once .
You 're pointing at outliers and calling it the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorrect?
Completely wrong?The popularity of DVD rentals (Netflix, Blockbuster, mom and pop) is proof that most people want to see a wide selection of movies exactly once.
You're pointing at outliers and calling it the norm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323920</id>
	<title>Another huge difference</title>
	<author>plastbox</author>
	<datestamp>1259943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, one pretty significant difference between the two is the cost of production. Terminator 2 cost about $90 million and is 137 minutes long. That's $647.482 per minute. A typical album might contain an hour of music or so and can (despite what the MPAA wants you to believe) be produced for next-to-nothing*.</p><p>Of course, I am not taking into account all the last millennium issues with distribution and publicity. I'm talking about the costs of actually <i>making</i> a movie or album</p><p>*By "next-to-nothing" I mean that cost of time in a studio and a good mixer/sound technician is low enough that even unknown, new bands can pool their money and pay to have an album recorded quite easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , one pretty significant difference between the two is the cost of production .
Terminator 2 cost about $ 90 million and is 137 minutes long .
That 's $ 647.482 per minute .
A typical album might contain an hour of music or so and can ( despite what the MPAA wants you to believe ) be produced for next-to-nothing * .Of course , I am not taking into account all the last millennium issues with distribution and publicity .
I 'm talking about the costs of actually making a movie or album * By " next-to-nothing " I mean that cost of time in a studio and a good mixer/sound technician is low enough that even unknown , new bands can pool their money and pay to have an album recorded quite easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, one pretty significant difference between the two is the cost of production.
Terminator 2 cost about $90 million and is 137 minutes long.
That's $647.482 per minute.
A typical album might contain an hour of music or so and can (despite what the MPAA wants you to believe) be produced for next-to-nothing*.Of course, I am not taking into account all the last millennium issues with distribution and publicity.
I'm talking about the costs of actually making a movie or album*By "next-to-nothing" I mean that cost of time in a studio and a good mixer/sound technician is low enough that even unknown, new bands can pool their money and pay to have an album recorded quite easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1259947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones.  You seem to assume that after watching the low-quality VCD, folks would want to watch the DVD...  And after watching the DVD, they'd want to see the theatrical release and buy the boxed set.</p><p>The problem with this, of course, is that a lot of movies just aren't that good.</p><p>I could easily see this working for something like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266697/" title="imdb.com">Kill Bill</a> [imdb.com] or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/" title="imdb.com">Ghost Busters</a> [imdb.com]...</p><p>But I'm not certain that it would work for the majority of movies out there.  I mean, I enjoyed <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119646/" title="imdb.com">The Hangover</a> [imdb.com]...  But, having watched it on VCD or DVD, I really don't think I'd feel the need to see it in the theater.  And I certainly wouldn't buy the boxed set.  And that was a pretty fun movie.</p><p>Sure, if the popularity for the VCD is low you don't have to make a crapton of DVDs...  And if the DVDs don't move you can just skip the theatrical release...  But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums.  The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else...  Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.</p><p>So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even.  I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD.  I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones .
You seem to assume that after watching the low-quality VCD , folks would want to watch the DVD... And after watching the DVD , they 'd want to see the theatrical release and buy the boxed set.The problem with this , of course , is that a lot of movies just are n't that good.I could easily see this working for something like Kill Bill [ imdb.com ] or Ghost Busters [ imdb.com ] ...But I 'm not certain that it would work for the majority of movies out there .
I mean , I enjoyed The Hangover [ imdb.com ] ... But , having watched it on VCD or DVD , I really do n't think I 'd feel the need to see it in the theater .
And I certainly would n't buy the boxed set .
And that was a pretty fun movie.Sure , if the popularity for the VCD is low you do n't have to make a crapton of DVDs... And if the DVDs do n't move you can just skip the theatrical release... But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums .
The money goes to paying actors , and lighting guys , and directors , and writers , and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.So I 'm really not certain you 'd wind up making enough money to break even .
I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days , most people would be content with a VCD or DVD .
I do n't think you 'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that this plan would be reliant on people actually wanting to watch the new releases after having seen the previous ones.
You seem to assume that after watching the low-quality VCD, folks would want to watch the DVD...  And after watching the DVD, they'd want to see the theatrical release and buy the boxed set.The problem with this, of course, is that a lot of movies just aren't that good.I could easily see this working for something like Kill Bill [imdb.com] or Ghost Busters [imdb.com]...But I'm not certain that it would work for the majority of movies out there.
I mean, I enjoyed The Hangover [imdb.com]...  But, having watched it on VCD or DVD, I really don't think I'd feel the need to see it in the theater.
And I certainly wouldn't buy the boxed set.
And that was a pretty fun movie.Sure, if the popularity for the VCD is low you don't have to make a crapton of DVDs...  And if the DVDs don't move you can just skip the theatrical release...  But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums.
The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else...  Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even.
I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD.
I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324124</id>
	<title>Where there's SPARTA, they PINGAS back</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259944260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What else is YouTube?</p></div><p>YouTube is a tool for parodying parts of movies, not showing them in their original context.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What else is YouTube ? YouTube is a tool for parodying parts of movies , not showing them in their original context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else is YouTube?YouTube is a tool for parodying parts of movies, not showing them in their original context.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324288</id>
	<title>Re:Gloomy?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1259945040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed. By far the best movie I've seen this year is <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136608/" title="imdb.com">District 9</a> [imdb.com], and the closest a big centralised studio came to that was TriStar getting <i>distribution</i> rights i.e. No input on the film at all. Essentially, the guy who made <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNReejO7Zu8" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snfc\_wNWqSU" title="youtube.com">this</a> [youtube.com] was offered $30m by Peter Jackson to do whatever he wanted after the Halo movie fell through.<br> <br>I suggest you watch it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
By far the best movie I 've seen this year is District 9 [ imdb.com ] , and the closest a big centralised studio came to that was TriStar getting distribution rights i.e .
No input on the film at all .
Essentially , the guy who made this [ youtube.com ] and this [ youtube.com ] was offered $ 30m by Peter Jackson to do whatever he wanted after the Halo movie fell through .
I suggest you watch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
By far the best movie I've seen this year is District 9 [imdb.com], and the closest a big centralised studio came to that was TriStar getting distribution rights i.e.
No input on the film at all.
Essentially, the guy who made this [youtube.com] and this [youtube.com] was offered $30m by Peter Jackson to do whatever he wanted after the Halo movie fell through.
I suggest you watch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</id>
	<title>Obvious difference</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1259942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.</p><p>Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once , and as soon as possible.Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists .
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases , rather than decreases , their desire to hear it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists.
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327072</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259956500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That is, they sell albums based on people wanting just one or two songs.</i></p><p>The recording industry was singles-based for most of its history. A 78 held only one song per side. A 45 only held one song per side*. It was 1948 before the twelve inch album was premiered.</p><blockquote><div><p>Beginning in 1939, Dr. Peter Goldmark and his staff at Columbia Records undertook efforts to address problems of recording and playing back narrow grooves and developing an inexpensive, reliable consumer playback system. In 1948, the 12-inch (30 cm) Long Play (LP) 33 rpm microgroove record album was introduced by the Columbia Record Company at a New York press conference on June 21, 1948. In February 1949, RCA Victor released the first 45 rpm single, 7 inches in diameter, with a large center hole to accommodate an automatic play mechanism on the changer, so a stack of singles would drop down one record at a time automatically after each play. Early 45 rpm records were made from either vinyl or polystyrene.[22] They had a playing time of eight minutes.[23]</p></div></blockquote><p>Most albums were "greatest hits" or other compilations; if you wanted a single you bought the 45 single.</p><p>During the 1960s and 1970s, many rock and roll bands made "concept albums" that were meant to be pleyed in their entirety; <i>Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour,</i> most Pink Floyd offerings, and many more.</p><p>When the CD came out is when the "album theivery" where you had to buy a whole CD full of second rate songs to get the one good one.</p><p><i>Why does a movie that cost $100 million to produce cost the same as a music CD that maybe cost $10 million (or $1 million, or less)?</i></p><p>Less; far less. You can get a record recorded in a professional studio and 1000 copies professionally duplicated with cover art and so on for the price of a good PA system and a few mikes (every band needs a good PA and mikes).</p><p><i>Good music can be produced for next to nothing, whereas it is much more difficult to do that with movies.</i></p><p><a href="http://www.starwreck.com/download.php" title="starwreck.com">This movie</a> [starwreck.com] scares the hell out of Hollywood. A parody of Star Trek and Babylon Five, it's very well done and hilarious. You can download it for free from the linked site (the producers of the movie). It only cost a few thousand dollars to make.</p><p>* The humorous song "They're Coming to Take Me Away" had a "B" side that was the song <i>played backwards</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is , they sell albums based on people wanting just one or two songs.The recording industry was singles-based for most of its history .
A 78 held only one song per side .
A 45 only held one song per side * .
It was 1948 before the twelve inch album was premiered.Beginning in 1939 , Dr. Peter Goldmark and his staff at Columbia Records undertook efforts to address problems of recording and playing back narrow grooves and developing an inexpensive , reliable consumer playback system .
In 1948 , the 12-inch ( 30 cm ) Long Play ( LP ) 33 rpm microgroove record album was introduced by the Columbia Record Company at a New York press conference on June 21 , 1948 .
In February 1949 , RCA Victor released the first 45 rpm single , 7 inches in diameter , with a large center hole to accommodate an automatic play mechanism on the changer , so a stack of singles would drop down one record at a time automatically after each play .
Early 45 rpm records were made from either vinyl or polystyrene .
[ 22 ] They had a playing time of eight minutes .
[ 23 ] Most albums were " greatest hits " or other compilations ; if you wanted a single you bought the 45 single.During the 1960s and 1970s , many rock and roll bands made " concept albums " that were meant to be pleyed in their entirety ; Sgt Pepper , Magical Mystery Tour , most Pink Floyd offerings , and many more.When the CD came out is when the " album theivery " where you had to buy a whole CD full of second rate songs to get the one good one.Why does a movie that cost $ 100 million to produce cost the same as a music CD that maybe cost $ 10 million ( or $ 1 million , or less ) ? Less ; far less .
You can get a record recorded in a professional studio and 1000 copies professionally duplicated with cover art and so on for the price of a good PA system and a few mikes ( every band needs a good PA and mikes ) .Good music can be produced for next to nothing , whereas it is much more difficult to do that with movies.This movie [ starwreck.com ] scares the hell out of Hollywood .
A parody of Star Trek and Babylon Five , it 's very well done and hilarious .
You can download it for free from the linked site ( the producers of the movie ) .
It only cost a few thousand dollars to make .
* The humorous song " They 're Coming to Take Me Away " had a " B " side that was the song played backwards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is, they sell albums based on people wanting just one or two songs.The recording industry was singles-based for most of its history.
A 78 held only one song per side.
A 45 only held one song per side*.
It was 1948 before the twelve inch album was premiered.Beginning in 1939, Dr. Peter Goldmark and his staff at Columbia Records undertook efforts to address problems of recording and playing back narrow grooves and developing an inexpensive, reliable consumer playback system.
In 1948, the 12-inch (30 cm) Long Play (LP) 33 rpm microgroove record album was introduced by the Columbia Record Company at a New York press conference on June 21, 1948.
In February 1949, RCA Victor released the first 45 rpm single, 7 inches in diameter, with a large center hole to accommodate an automatic play mechanism on the changer, so a stack of singles would drop down one record at a time automatically after each play.
Early 45 rpm records were made from either vinyl or polystyrene.
[22] They had a playing time of eight minutes.
[23]Most albums were "greatest hits" or other compilations; if you wanted a single you bought the 45 single.During the 1960s and 1970s, many rock and roll bands made "concept albums" that were meant to be pleyed in their entirety; Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, most Pink Floyd offerings, and many more.When the CD came out is when the "album theivery" where you had to buy a whole CD full of second rate songs to get the one good one.Why does a movie that cost $100 million to produce cost the same as a music CD that maybe cost $10 million (or $1 million, or less)?Less; far less.
You can get a record recorded in a professional studio and 1000 copies professionally duplicated with cover art and so on for the price of a good PA system and a few mikes (every band needs a good PA and mikes).Good music can be produced for next to nothing, whereas it is much more difficult to do that with movies.This movie [starwreck.com] scares the hell out of Hollywood.
A parody of Star Trek and Babylon Five, it's very well done and hilarious.
You can download it for free from the linked site (the producers of the movie).
It only cost a few thousand dollars to make.
* The humorous song "They're Coming to Take Me Away" had a "B" side that was the song played backwards
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330362</id>
	<title>Re:DVD Sales Gap</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1259927760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I agree, and I feel the same way about movies in theatres. This week my girlfriend (knowing my niggardly ways with movies) asked if I wanted to see The Informant for $2.75 at the cheap-o theatre. My response was, eh, maybe, but it sounded a little expensive.</p><p>For me, actually, it's really easy to "boycott" movie studios, and "boycott" DRM'd DVDs, because I generally think most movies stink. So I can pretend to be all morally superior about it, but really it's just me hating flicks.</p><p>I do love Netflix, tho. For fifty cents a day they'll send me two DVDs at a time, which I promptly rip and return, and watch at my leisure. I probably get about twenty discs per month, which makes the price low enough. I'd keep the MPEG files if I wanted them, but I don't, so I don't. I can get most of the shows that I wish I could watch on TV, but can't because of the TV commercials. I can also get older shows that aren't on TV anymore, or that are on channels I don't get. Finally, I love their on-demand service, which quite to my surprise works very well and has great quality (I have pretty decent internet bandwidth). So yeah, this was basically a slashvertisement for Netflix. The future of television hasn't quiiiiiite arrived, but it's close, and it will look a heck of a lot like Netflix.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I agree , and I feel the same way about movies in theatres .
This week my girlfriend ( knowing my niggardly ways with movies ) asked if I wanted to see The Informant for $ 2.75 at the cheap-o theatre .
My response was , eh , maybe , but it sounded a little expensive.For me , actually , it 's really easy to " boycott " movie studios , and " boycott " DRM 'd DVDs , because I generally think most movies stink .
So I can pretend to be all morally superior about it , but really it 's just me hating flicks.I do love Netflix , tho .
For fifty cents a day they 'll send me two DVDs at a time , which I promptly rip and return , and watch at my leisure .
I probably get about twenty discs per month , which makes the price low enough .
I 'd keep the MPEG files if I wanted them , but I do n't , so I do n't .
I can get most of the shows that I wish I could watch on TV , but ca n't because of the TV commercials .
I can also get older shows that are n't on TV anymore , or that are on channels I do n't get .
Finally , I love their on-demand service , which quite to my surprise works very well and has great quality ( I have pretty decent internet bandwidth ) .
So yeah , this was basically a slashvertisement for Netflix .
The future of television has n't quiiiiiite arrived , but it 's close , and it will look a heck of a lot like Netflix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I agree, and I feel the same way about movies in theatres.
This week my girlfriend (knowing my niggardly ways with movies) asked if I wanted to see The Informant for $2.75 at the cheap-o theatre.
My response was, eh, maybe, but it sounded a little expensive.For me, actually, it's really easy to "boycott" movie studios, and "boycott" DRM'd DVDs, because I generally think most movies stink.
So I can pretend to be all morally superior about it, but really it's just me hating flicks.I do love Netflix, tho.
For fifty cents a day they'll send me two DVDs at a time, which I promptly rip and return, and watch at my leisure.
I probably get about twenty discs per month, which makes the price low enough.
I'd keep the MPEG files if I wanted them, but I don't, so I don't.
I can get most of the shows that I wish I could watch on TV, but can't because of the TV commercials.
I can also get older shows that aren't on TV anymore, or that are on channels I don't get.
Finally, I love their on-demand service, which quite to my surprise works very well and has great quality (I have pretty decent internet bandwidth).
So yeah, this was basically a slashvertisement for Netflix.
The future of television hasn't quiiiiiite arrived, but it's close, and it will look a heck of a lot like Netflix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324464</id>
	<title>breaking the model</title>
	<author>woboyle</author>
	<datestamp>1259945880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People purchase music they like and then play it relatively frequently. Movies are quite different. Most of us will watch a particular movie once, and possibly twice or three times if we really like it. Kids videos are somewhat different in that they (the kids) tend to want to watch stuff they like over and over. Until the movie industry realizes that they can sell more and make more by significantly lowering the price of movies, they are never going to overcome "piracy" and illegal sharing of their IP. FWIW, most of the movies my wife and I purchase are in the $5 remainders bin. If feature movies sold for under $10 USD each, there would be little or no financial incentive for pirates, and it would be more cost-effective for people who share ripped, substandard, copies to simply purchase the product with official media and quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People purchase music they like and then play it relatively frequently .
Movies are quite different .
Most of us will watch a particular movie once , and possibly twice or three times if we really like it .
Kids videos are somewhat different in that they ( the kids ) tend to want to watch stuff they like over and over .
Until the movie industry realizes that they can sell more and make more by significantly lowering the price of movies , they are never going to overcome " piracy " and illegal sharing of their IP .
FWIW , most of the movies my wife and I purchase are in the $ 5 remainders bin .
If feature movies sold for under $ 10 USD each , there would be little or no financial incentive for pirates , and it would be more cost-effective for people who share ripped , substandard , copies to simply purchase the product with official media and quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People purchase music they like and then play it relatively frequently.
Movies are quite different.
Most of us will watch a particular movie once, and possibly twice or three times if we really like it.
Kids videos are somewhat different in that they (the kids) tend to want to watch stuff they like over and over.
Until the movie industry realizes that they can sell more and make more by significantly lowering the price of movies, they are never going to overcome "piracy" and illegal sharing of their IP.
FWIW, most of the movies my wife and I purchase are in the $5 remainders bin.
If feature movies sold for under $10 USD each, there would be little or no financial incentive for pirates, and it would be more cost-effective for people who share ripped, substandard, copies to simply purchase the product with official media and quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327028</id>
	<title>Re:New physical music media?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259956320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format. Why? It's not like the so-called "musicians" of today want to make longer records (for which more storage would be necessary), and it's not like consumers want higher-quality audio, either</i></p><p>That's the fault of the music industry executives, who seem to either have been dropped on their heads as infants, or smoke tons of crack. If they had been <i>giving away</i> MP3s (especially lower quality but still listenable MP3s) and sold CDs for their higher quality, those surveys and tests wouldn't be the same.</p><p>Their engineers no longer go for fidelity, but for "sounds good". In CD's infancy, it was the best that could be done with the time's technology. They should introduce DVDs containing music sampled at ten times CD's sampling rate, with good speakers it would blow you away.</p><p>They don't give MP3s away as promotional items because the indies do it, major labels have radio and feel they don't need to. You used to buy records, now you rent files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format .
Why ? It 's not like the so-called " musicians " of today want to make longer records ( for which more storage would be necessary ) , and it 's not like consumers want higher-quality audio , eitherThat 's the fault of the music industry executives , who seem to either have been dropped on their heads as infants , or smoke tons of crack .
If they had been giving away MP3s ( especially lower quality but still listenable MP3s ) and sold CDs for their higher quality , those surveys and tests would n't be the same.Their engineers no longer go for fidelity , but for " sounds good " .
In CD 's infancy , it was the best that could be done with the time 's technology .
They should introduce DVDs containing music sampled at ten times CD 's sampling rate , with good speakers it would blow you away.They do n't give MP3s away as promotional items because the indies do it , major labels have radio and feel they do n't need to .
You used to buy records , now you rent files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format.
Why? It's not like the so-called "musicians" of today want to make longer records (for which more storage would be necessary), and it's not like consumers want higher-quality audio, eitherThat's the fault of the music industry executives, who seem to either have been dropped on their heads as infants, or smoke tons of crack.
If they had been giving away MP3s (especially lower quality but still listenable MP3s) and sold CDs for their higher quality, those surveys and tests wouldn't be the same.Their engineers no longer go for fidelity, but for "sounds good".
In CD's infancy, it was the best that could be done with the time's technology.
They should introduce DVDs containing music sampled at ten times CD's sampling rate, with good speakers it would blow you away.They don't give MP3s away as promotional items because the indies do it, major labels have radio and feel they don't need to.
You used to buy records, now you rent files.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324300</id>
	<title>Re:New physical music media?</title>
	<author>jlf278</author>
	<datestamp>1259945100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well if consumers spent as much money on sound systems as they did on tv's, I think there would be a much higher preference for high bit-rate encoding.  I used to be happy with 128 Kbps with my $60 computer speakers and internal tv speakers, but now that I have decent audio setups in my car and living room, the difference is easily noticeable like going from 480p to 720p.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if consumers spent as much money on sound systems as they did on tv 's , I think there would be a much higher preference for high bit-rate encoding .
I used to be happy with 128 Kbps with my $ 60 computer speakers and internal tv speakers , but now that I have decent audio setups in my car and living room , the difference is easily noticeable like going from 480p to 720p .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if consumers spent as much money on sound systems as they did on tv's, I think there would be a much higher preference for high bit-rate encoding.
I used to be happy with 128 Kbps with my $60 computer speakers and internal tv speakers, but now that I have decent audio setups in my car and living room, the difference is easily noticeable like going from 480p to 720p.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30335404</id>
	<title>Re:Intrinsic worth</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1260032580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sarah, please note that I asked a question; I didn't make a statement.  If you apologise for your libellous claim that I am attempting to "validate theft", we can avoid any unpleasant legalities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sarah , please note that I asked a question ; I did n't make a statement .
If you apologise for your libellous claim that I am attempting to " validate theft " , we can avoid any unpleasant legalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sarah, please note that I asked a question; I didn't make a statement.
If you apologise for your libellous claim that I am attempting to "validate theft", we can avoid any unpleasant legalities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30331538</id>
	<title>Re:Another huge difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259935680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, one pretty significant difference between the two is the cost of production. Terminator 2 cost about $90 million and is 137 minutes long. That's $647.482 per minute. A typical album might contain an hour of music or so and can (despite what the MPAA wants you to believe) be produced for next-to-nothing*.</p><p>Of course, I am not taking into account all the last millennium issues with distribution and publicity. I'm talking about the costs of actually <i>making</i> a movie or album</p><p>*By "next-to-nothing" I mean that cost of time in a studio and a good mixer/sound technician is low enough that even unknown, new bands can pool their money and pay to have an album recorded quite easily.</p></div><p>So none of the people (band members, etc) involved in making an album have time that is worth anything?</p><p>It's not like physically making the computer graphics sucks millions of dollars away. Grab CAD, maybe some motion tracking devices and a blue screen, some of those laser scanners and clay/dolls to model, add in the computers to use it and what else do you need?</p><p>How can that possibly cost $90 million? Oh yea, because all the computer animation guys have extensive training and their time is worth a lot of money. It's the same with music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , one pretty significant difference between the two is the cost of production .
Terminator 2 cost about $ 90 million and is 137 minutes long .
That 's $ 647.482 per minute .
A typical album might contain an hour of music or so and can ( despite what the MPAA wants you to believe ) be produced for next-to-nothing * .Of course , I am not taking into account all the last millennium issues with distribution and publicity .
I 'm talking about the costs of actually making a movie or album * By " next-to-nothing " I mean that cost of time in a studio and a good mixer/sound technician is low enough that even unknown , new bands can pool their money and pay to have an album recorded quite easily.So none of the people ( band members , etc ) involved in making an album have time that is worth anything ? It 's not like physically making the computer graphics sucks millions of dollars away .
Grab CAD , maybe some motion tracking devices and a blue screen , some of those laser scanners and clay/dolls to model , add in the computers to use it and what else do you need ? How can that possibly cost $ 90 million ?
Oh yea , because all the computer animation guys have extensive training and their time is worth a lot of money .
It 's the same with music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, one pretty significant difference between the two is the cost of production.
Terminator 2 cost about $90 million and is 137 minutes long.
That's $647.482 per minute.
A typical album might contain an hour of music or so and can (despite what the MPAA wants you to believe) be produced for next-to-nothing*.Of course, I am not taking into account all the last millennium issues with distribution and publicity.
I'm talking about the costs of actually making a movie or album*By "next-to-nothing" I mean that cost of time in a studio and a good mixer/sound technician is low enough that even unknown, new bands can pool their money and pay to have an album recorded quite easily.So none of the people (band members, etc) involved in making an album have time that is worth anything?It's not like physically making the computer graphics sucks millions of dollars away.
Grab CAD, maybe some motion tracking devices and a blue screen, some of those laser scanners and clay/dolls to model, add in the computers to use it and what else do you need?How can that possibly cost $90 million?
Oh yea, because all the computer animation guys have extensive training and their time is worth a lot of money.
It's the same with music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324440</id>
	<title>Re:Gloomy?</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1259945700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to say, I like some of the larger budget action/CGI flicks.  That said they do take up way too much real estate at the theaters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to say , I like some of the larger budget action/CGI flicks .
That said they do take up way too much real estate at the theaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to say, I like some of the larger budget action/CGI flicks.
That said they do take up way too much real estate at the theaters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326208</id>
	<title>The theater itself...</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1259953260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, you can download a rip or buy a DVD [legally or illegally], but it's different from the experience of the theater itself. A screen of a few dozen feet rather than a few dozen inches, for instance. That's probably worth paying for, at least occassionally. Not $10, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you can download a rip or buy a DVD [ legally or illegally ] , but it 's different from the experience of the theater itself .
A screen of a few dozen feet rather than a few dozen inches , for instance .
That 's probably worth paying for , at least occassionally .
Not $ 10 , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you can download a rip or buy a DVD [legally or illegally], but it's different from the experience of the theater itself.
A screen of a few dozen feet rather than a few dozen inches, for instance.
That's probably worth paying for, at least occassionally.
Not $10, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325110</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1259948520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.</p><p>Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.</p></div><p>Incorrect.</p><p>Completely wrong.</p><p>So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.</p><p>In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel.  There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing.  There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them.  And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.</p><p>To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.</p><p>Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate.  They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends.  They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.</p><p>But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids.  You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie.  They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing...  They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film...  They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available...  And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.</p><p>Then you've got movies with some real substance to them.  Things like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/" title="imdb.com">Pulp Fiction</a> [imdb.com].  Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it.  Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.</p><p>Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old.  This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences...  But I don't know how many times I've watched <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/" title="imdb.com">Alien</a> [imdb.com] or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092991/" title="imdb.com">Evil Dead II</a> [imdb.com] or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115819/" title="imdb.com">Cannibal: The Musical</a> [imdb.com].</p></div><p>I used to agree with you, but as general movie quality has slipped, so has my opinion...</p><p>Childhood infatuations aside (which I don't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure, IMO), there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once.  Maybe 1 movie every two years.  The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one (sober) viewing.   </p><p>The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979, 1987, and 1998, so I gather you agree with me to some extent.  </p><p>I don't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity.     </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once , and as soon as possible.Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists .
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases , rather than decreases , their desire to hear it.Incorrect.Completely wrong.So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.In a lot of ways , a movie is like a novel .
There are some you read through once , and then get rid of because they just are n't that amazing .
There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them .
And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once , and that they 're all basically disposable , is simply ignorant.Sure , if you 're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that 's probably accurate .
They 're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends .
They 'll go see it within days of the opening , they 'll see it once , and they wo n't even pay much attention to it.But then you 've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids .
You 've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie .
They 'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing... They 'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film... They 'll need the DVD the day it becomes available... And they 'll watch it over and over again , until the disc literally wears out.Then you 've got movies with some real substance to them .
Things like Pulp Fiction [ imdb.com ] .
Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it .
Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.Then there are the quality movies that just do n't get old .
This will , of course , vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences... But I do n't know how many times I 've watched Alien [ imdb.com ] or Evil Dead II [ imdb.com ] or Cannibal : The Musical [ imdb.com ] .I used to agree with you , but as general movie quality has slipped , so has my opinion...Childhood infatuations aside ( which I do n't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure , IMO ) , there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once .
Maybe 1 movie every two years .
The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one ( sober ) viewing .
The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979 , 1987 , and 1998 , so I gather you agree with me to some extent .
I do n't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An obvious difference is that people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists.
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.Incorrect.Completely wrong.So wrong it makes me wonder where on Earth you came up with this idea.In a lot of ways, a movie is like a novel.
There are some you read through once, and then get rid of because they just aren't that amazing.
There are some you have to re-read several times simply to understand them.
And then there are the favorites that you keep coming back to year after year.To claim that everyone is only interested in seeing a movie once, and that they're all basically disposable, is simply ignorant.Sure, if you're talking about some generic action/horror movie aimed at teenfolk that's probably accurate.
They're just looking for something to serve as background noise while they hang out with their friends.
They'll go see it within days of the opening, they'll see it once, and they won't even pay much attention to it.But then you've got the G/PG stuff aimed at little kids.
You've obviously never witnessed a small child and their favorite movie.
They'll drag you to the theater a dozen times while it is showing...  They'll make you buy every single solitary piece of merchandise tied into the film...  They'll need the DVD the day it becomes available...  And they'll watch it over and over again, until the disc literally wears out.Then you've got movies with some real substance to them.
Things like Pulp Fiction [imdb.com].
Movies where you literally notice something new each time you watch it.
Movies that take multiple viewings to actually understand what is going on.Then there are the quality movies that just don't get old.
This will, of course, vary quite a bit depending on your personal preferences...  But I don't know how many times I've watched Alien [imdb.com] or Evil Dead II [imdb.com] or Cannibal: The Musical [imdb.com].I used to agree with you, but as general movie quality has slipped, so has my opinion...Childhood infatuations aside (which I don't think are healthy anyway and are a direct result of advertising and peer pressure, IMO), there are a very low percentage of movies that I would prefer to watch more than once.
Maybe 1 movie every two years.
The rest of what comes out is complete crap that can be completely understood and remembered after one (sober) viewing.
The three favorite movies you just listed were from 1979, 1987, and 1998, so I gather you agree with me to some extent.
I don't think it is fair to compare movies to books either due to the fact that books are able to offer so much more nuance and storyline complexity.     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326074</id>
	<title>(smirk)</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259952660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm glad you're still selling bottled water. how quaint</p><p>if you hadn't noticed, the internet came along, and created a lake right behind your water stand. no one needs to buy your water anymore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm glad you 're still selling bottled water .
how quaintif you had n't noticed , the internet came along , and created a lake right behind your water stand .
no one needs to buy your water anymore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm glad you're still selling bottled water.
how quaintif you hadn't noticed, the internet came along, and created a lake right behind your water stand.
no one needs to buy your water anymore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324542</id>
	<title>Intrinsic worth</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259946180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your logic operates under the assumption that a movie has a fixed value, that intrinsically all films are worth $20.</p><p>In a free market, value is determined by supply and demand.</p><p>You're trying to validate theft of IP by a product losing value due to low demand. Just because an item is placed on sale, that doesn't mean you are entitled to pay nothing for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your logic operates under the assumption that a movie has a fixed value , that intrinsically all films are worth $ 20.In a free market , value is determined by supply and demand.You 're trying to validate theft of IP by a product losing value due to low demand .
Just because an item is placed on sale , that does n't mean you are entitled to pay nothing for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your logic operates under the assumption that a movie has a fixed value, that intrinsically all films are worth $20.In a free market, value is determined by supply and demand.You're trying to validate theft of IP by a product losing value due to low demand.
Just because an item is placed on sale, that doesn't mean you are entitled to pay nothing for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324178</id>
	<title>Re:Disaggregation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>For a good example, see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout\_rgPSA" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [youtube.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.For a good example , see here [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.For a good example, see here [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324146</id>
	<title>Re:PSN's video store</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it would be nice if you could download your favourite single episode of Family Guy, The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory instead of having to fork for the box set (or can you already do this).</p></div><p>you can watch TV shows in streaming man, and it's not even illegal...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it would be nice if you could download your favourite single episode of Family Guy , The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory instead of having to fork for the box set ( or can you already do this ) .you can watch TV shows in streaming man , and it 's not even illegal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it would be nice if you could download your favourite single episode of Family Guy, The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory instead of having to fork for the box set (or can you already do this).you can watch TV shows in streaming man, and it's not even illegal...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324122</id>
	<title>DVDA and SACD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both killed by greed and proprietaryness.</p><p>Overpriced hardware, presumably because of overpriced licences for the technology.</p><p>Even Sony couldn't afford the license for more recent Sony hardware, the PS3, which initially supported SACD.</p><p>FAIL FAIL FAIL.</p><p>CDs suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both killed by greed and proprietaryness.Overpriced hardware , presumably because of overpriced licences for the technology.Even Sony could n't afford the license for more recent Sony hardware , the PS3 , which initially supported SACD.FAIL FAIL FAIL.CDs suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both killed by greed and proprietaryness.Overpriced hardware, presumably because of overpriced licences for the technology.Even Sony couldn't afford the license for more recent Sony hardware, the PS3, which initially supported SACD.FAIL FAIL FAIL.CDs suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324322</id>
	<title>Re:Disaggregation</title>
	<author>pseudonomous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't even watch the trailers anymore, I just skip straight to the comments...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even watch the trailers anymore , I just skip straight to the comments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even watch the trailers anymore, I just skip straight to the comments...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325238</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>ThisIsAnonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259949000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once</p></div><p>Uhh...where did you get this information from?  Most people I know watch the same movies more than once.  All of my friends have a few favorite films that they would easily watch over and over (Office Space, Star Wars, Rocky Horror Picture Show etc.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists. And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.</p></div><p>Have you heard of film studies? There are numerous journals (Cineaste, Film Comment, Film Quarterly etc.) and books etc. that discuss films in depth and I can definitely argue that "complete knowledge of the contents of a film increases, rather than decreases, the desire to see the film again and again..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people are interested in seeing a movie exactly onceUhh...where did you get this information from ?
Most people I know watch the same movies more than once .
All of my friends have a few favorite films that they would easily watch over and over ( Office Space , Star Wars , Rocky Horror Picture Show etc .
) Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists .
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases , rather than decreases , their desire to hear it.Have you heard of film studies ?
There are numerous journals ( Cineaste , Film Comment , Film Quarterly etc .
) and books etc .
that discuss films in depth and I can definitely argue that " complete knowledge of the contents of a film increases , rather than decreases , the desire to see the film again and again... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are interested in seeing a movie exactly onceUhh...where did you get this information from?
Most people I know watch the same movies more than once.
All of my friends have a few favorite films that they would easily watch over and over (Office Space, Star Wars, Rocky Horror Picture Show etc.
)Music relies on people wanting to hear it multiple times and they are probably more interested in the music well after it exists.
And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.Have you heard of film studies?
There are numerous journals (Cineaste, Film Comment, Film Quarterly etc.
) and books etc.
that discuss films in depth and I can definitely argue that "complete knowledge of the contents of a film increases, rather than decreases, the desire to see the film again and again..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30338380</id>
	<title>Re:Disaggregation</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260008640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad but true! Too many "funny" movies show ALL of the funny parts in the trailer. The rest of the movie is just duck tape holding the funny bits together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad but true !
Too many " funny " movies show ALL of the funny parts in the trailer .
The rest of the movie is just duck tape holding the funny bits together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad but true!
Too many "funny" movies show ALL of the funny parts in the trailer.
The rest of the movie is just duck tape holding the funny bits together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328752</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>FishOuttaWater</author>
	<datestamp>1259920620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you have some set of movies you love that you watch again and again. And yes, my young kids were the same way. My wife always wants to see something new, and can't watch movies again for years after, and that's just the way she is. Different people, ok.</p><p>...but even for a favorite-movie type, you spend some of your time finding new favorite movies, right? How much of the time do you watch a new film vs an old one? You can see there is definitely a place for (renting or streaming) and for owning here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you have some set of movies you love that you watch again and again .
And yes , my young kids were the same way .
My wife always wants to see something new , and ca n't watch movies again for years after , and that 's just the way she is .
Different people , ok....but even for a favorite-movie type , you spend some of your time finding new favorite movies , right ?
How much of the time do you watch a new film vs an old one ?
You can see there is definitely a place for ( renting or streaming ) and for owning here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you have some set of movies you love that you watch again and again.
And yes, my young kids were the same way.
My wife always wants to see something new, and can't watch movies again for years after, and that's just the way she is.
Different people, ok....but even for a favorite-movie type, you spend some of your time finding new favorite movies, right?
How much of the time do you watch a new film vs an old one?
You can see there is definitely a place for (renting or streaming) and for owning here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326972</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259956080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there IS no one-stop style that fits all.</i></p><p>Yes, but the first person was taking his own style and claiming that EVERYONE follows the same pattern. So no, both are not right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there IS no one-stop style that fits all.Yes , but the first person was taking his own style and claiming that EVERYONE follows the same pattern .
So no , both are not right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there IS no one-stop style that fits all.Yes, but the first person was taking his own style and claiming that EVERYONE follows the same pattern.
So no, both are not right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325624</id>
	<title>Production Costs</title>
	<author>cowtamer</author>
	<datestamp>1259950680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another point that people seem to be missing is that movies are intrinsically momre expensive and difficult to produce than music.  While you might have an independent music act that is just as good as Britney Spears, we are a LONG way from independent movies that match the production quality/acting/special effects/etc. of Star Wars, 2012, etc.  [Look at the credits for any movie to have at least an \_idea\_ of how much work goes into it].</p><p>For this reason, the democratization that threatens "big music" is very unlikely to threaten Hollywood.  (The occasional independent movie that becomes a hit is unlikely to change the general trend).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another point that people seem to be missing is that movies are intrinsically momre expensive and difficult to produce than music .
While you might have an independent music act that is just as good as Britney Spears , we are a LONG way from independent movies that match the production quality/acting/special effects/etc .
of Star Wars , 2012 , etc .
[ Look at the credits for any movie to have at least an \ _idea \ _ of how much work goes into it ] .For this reason , the democratization that threatens " big music " is very unlikely to threaten Hollywood .
( The occasional independent movie that becomes a hit is unlikely to change the general trend ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another point that people seem to be missing is that movies are intrinsically momre expensive and difficult to produce than music.
While you might have an independent music act that is just as good as Britney Spears, we are a LONG way from independent movies that match the production quality/acting/special effects/etc.
of Star Wars, 2012, etc.
[Look at the credits for any movie to have at least an \_idea\_ of how much work goes into it].For this reason, the democratization that threatens "big music" is very unlikely to threaten Hollywood.
(The occasional independent movie that becomes a hit is unlikely to change the general trend).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330476</id>
	<title>Analysis?</title>
	<author>angel'o'sphere</author>
	<datestamp>1259928480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that anyone ever made a profound analysis about why sales of CDs / DVDs etc go down. Everyone claiming to have made an analysis only presents his half ass own thoughts and theories.<br>I for my part own no single ripped movie, and the movies I have you can count on one hand I think.<br>The reasons for that is very simple:<br>
&nbsp; a) I watched the movie in the cinema already<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - most movies are to bad to watch them a second time, this counts e.g. for 90\% of the action movies, action but no story<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oops<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for what should I buy such a DVD?<br>b) a lot of movies come so late to europe that I have seen the american original already, so I don't go into the cinema either<br>c) many low price DVDs that are added to movie magazines e.g. only have the german version, no language slection etc.<br>d) seasons of TV shows like Dr. House e.g. are 5 years behind the US airing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ofc I already have bought or lend the DVDs</p><p>A majour hassle is: iTunes US only sells to US residents. Again lost sales for the movie makers. I don't wait 5 years to finally buy the TV show in germany where it likely only is sold at all *IF* it was aired first successfully.</p><p>Looking at music it is even simpler, business model of the majour labels is: promote (invest) a billion per year into a few artists, promote them and let them run some shows let them make an album a year and probably let them show up in a movie. Hope that you gain the investment back with those 0 artists only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unfortunately that means every label has only about 10 artists, that might be in total about 100 artists on the music market.</p><p>If I prefer different music? There is none. I can not even buy the music from my old LPs again as CD. Because it is simply not in store, neither online (as download) nor as CD (online or at a vendor).</p><p>You wont believe it but the last CD I bought physical was from a band that had a show here in town and sold their CDs after wards.</p><p>The only way for me to buy CDs now is to go into stores, go to the shelve of the genre I like and start browsing. Not the worst way ofc. however stores with a good selection are really rare.</p><p>My part of view is: half of the movies / music is so bad it might be worth "pirating" but certainly not buying especially if you take the prices into account. The rest of the music is either good old stuff that is not even for sale, EVEN as tehre are customers who would buy it and the rest is so bad it is not even worth pirating. Exchange bad with "flavour of the year mainstream boring" or with "not my taste" if you wish.</p><p>The music and movie industry simply does not make stuff where demand is, but just makes stuff and then advertises it and then hopes it has <b>created</b> enough demand/desire for its creations.</p><p>Look at the movie "district 9". The movie industry is "surprised" that this movie hit like a bomb? Hello? How stupid can one be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the move is simple maid, has a good story, has enough surprises to let the watcher say: "oops, why this?" and has enough explanations that the watcher does not feel stupid after he said "oops".</p><p>Movies like this is what the people want, not some "Transformers II" where only the special effects are interesting and only a 16 year old boy will go in because of the cute actress.</p><p>angel'o'spheree</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that anyone ever made a profound analysis about why sales of CDs / DVDs etc go down .
Everyone claiming to have made an analysis only presents his half ass own thoughts and theories.I for my part own no single ripped movie , and the movies I have you can count on one hand I think.The reasons for that is very simple :   a ) I watched the movie in the cinema already     - most movies are to bad to watch them a second time , this counts e.g .
for 90 \ % of the action movies , action but no story ... oops ... for what should I buy such a DVD ? b ) a lot of movies come so late to europe that I have seen the american original already , so I do n't go into the cinema eitherc ) many low price DVDs that are added to movie magazines e.g .
only have the german version , no language slection etc.d ) seasons of TV shows like Dr. House e.g .
are 5 years behind the US airing ... ofc I already have bought or lend the DVDsA majour hassle is : iTunes US only sells to US residents .
Again lost sales for the movie makers .
I do n't wait 5 years to finally buy the TV show in germany where it likely only is sold at all * IF * it was aired first successfully.Looking at music it is even simpler , business model of the majour labels is : promote ( invest ) a billion per year into a few artists , promote them and let them run some shows let them make an album a year and probably let them show up in a movie .
Hope that you gain the investment back with those 0 artists only ... unfortunately that means every label has only about 10 artists , that might be in total about 100 artists on the music market.If I prefer different music ?
There is none .
I can not even buy the music from my old LPs again as CD .
Because it is simply not in store , neither online ( as download ) nor as CD ( online or at a vendor ) .You wont believe it but the last CD I bought physical was from a band that had a show here in town and sold their CDs after wards.The only way for me to buy CDs now is to go into stores , go to the shelve of the genre I like and start browsing .
Not the worst way ofc .
however stores with a good selection are really rare.My part of view is : half of the movies / music is so bad it might be worth " pirating " but certainly not buying especially if you take the prices into account .
The rest of the music is either good old stuff that is not even for sale , EVEN as tehre are customers who would buy it and the rest is so bad it is not even worth pirating .
Exchange bad with " flavour of the year mainstream boring " or with " not my taste " if you wish.The music and movie industry simply does not make stuff where demand is , but just makes stuff and then advertises it and then hopes it has created enough demand/desire for its creations.Look at the movie " district 9 " .
The movie industry is " surprised " that this movie hit like a bomb ?
Hello ? How stupid can one be ... the move is simple maid , has a good story , has enough surprises to let the watcher say : " oops , why this ?
" and has enough explanations that the watcher does not feel stupid after he said " oops " .Movies like this is what the people want , not some " Transformers II " where only the special effects are interesting and only a 16 year old boy will go in because of the cute actress.angel'o'spheree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that anyone ever made a profound analysis about why sales of CDs / DVDs etc go down.
Everyone claiming to have made an analysis only presents his half ass own thoughts and theories.I for my part own no single ripped movie, and the movies I have you can count on one hand I think.The reasons for that is very simple:
  a) I watched the movie in the cinema already
    - most movies are to bad to watch them a second time, this counts e.g.
for 90\% of the action movies, action but no story ... oops ... for what should I buy such a DVD?b) a lot of movies come so late to europe that I have seen the american original already, so I don't go into the cinema eitherc) many low price DVDs that are added to movie magazines e.g.
only have the german version, no language slection etc.d) seasons of TV shows like Dr. House e.g.
are 5 years behind the US airing ... ofc I already have bought or lend the DVDsA majour hassle is: iTunes US only sells to US residents.
Again lost sales for the movie makers.
I don't wait 5 years to finally buy the TV show in germany where it likely only is sold at all *IF* it was aired first successfully.Looking at music it is even simpler, business model of the majour labels is: promote (invest) a billion per year into a few artists, promote them and let them run some shows let them make an album a year and probably let them show up in a movie.
Hope that you gain the investment back with those 0 artists only ... unfortunately that means every label has only about 10 artists, that might be in total about 100 artists on the music market.If I prefer different music?
There is none.
I can not even buy the music from my old LPs again as CD.
Because it is simply not in store, neither online (as download) nor as CD (online or at a vendor).You wont believe it but the last CD I bought physical was from a band that had a show here in town and sold their CDs after wards.The only way for me to buy CDs now is to go into stores, go to the shelve of the genre I like and start browsing.
Not the worst way ofc.
however stores with a good selection are really rare.My part of view is: half of the movies / music is so bad it might be worth "pirating" but certainly not buying especially if you take the prices into account.
The rest of the music is either good old stuff that is not even for sale, EVEN as tehre are customers who would buy it and the rest is so bad it is not even worth pirating.
Exchange bad with "flavour of the year mainstream boring" or with "not my taste" if you wish.The music and movie industry simply does not make stuff where demand is, but just makes stuff and then advertises it and then hopes it has created enough demand/desire for its creations.Look at the movie "district 9".
The movie industry is "surprised" that this movie hit like a bomb?
Hello? How stupid can one be ... the move is simple maid, has a good story, has enough surprises to let the watcher say: "oops, why this?
" and has enough explanations that the watcher does not feel stupid after he said "oops".Movies like this is what the people want, not some "Transformers II" where only the special effects are interesting and only a 16 year old boy will go in because of the cute actress.angel'o'spheree</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330354</id>
	<title>No DUH!</title>
	<author>bornagainpenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1259927700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are a couple problems with writing, recording, and self-publishing your own album:</p><ul>
<li>How do you promote it? The major labels have a lock on MTV, FM radio, and XM radio, the traditional ways to discover popular music.</li></ul></div><p>
I'm karma-whoring with this post, but the question <i>must</i> be asked--what does MTV have to do with music?</p><p>
They haven't played music videos this decade so far as I can tell.  They may have had some input once, but that time is long since past.  No one turns on MTV expecting to hear music any more.  You'd have more luck finding new music via podcast or from one of the few internet radio stations still able to afford the MAFIAA's highway robbery.</p><p><div class="quote"><ul>
<li>How do you distribute it to people who don't have high-speed Internet access? The major labels have a lock on Walmart* and Best Buy, and some genres (such as country music) would appear to be more popular among people who live in areas where dial-up is the fastest (miles from the closest DSLAM, and no cable TV available).</li></ul></div><p>
If you're self-published, then you have to work the podcast circuit, the myspace music scene, sell what you can at shows along with t-shirts, etc.  Its more difficult and you may never get to live like an RIAA star, but at least you know what you make is <i>yours</i> and your fans like your music, not your publicist.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>
Besides, those guys who live like that on the RIAA's dime are really just living on fool's gold--all the money they're spending is a loan at incredible interest that they only <i>hope</i> they can pay off before their contract is up.  Many of those artists end up heavily in debt to the MAFIAA and for every star you know who makes it, there are bunches of whom die penniless.  There's a reason why the Rolling Stones go on tour every so many years you know...  The money doesn't last and there's no pension so its off to the studio and onwards for another "good bye" tour...</p><p><div class="quote"><ul>
<li>How do you plan to avoid or defend copyright lawsuits in case part of your song happens to coincidentally match the hook of a song that was played on the radio? Compare Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.</li></ul></div><p>
You don't.  You couldn't afford the lawsuit any way--the only ones who get anything out of a lawsuit like that are the lawyers.  Besides, nine times out of ten its impossible to know if you've unknowingly recreated a hook or not until someone shows it to you.  Read Spider Robinson's <a href="http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html" title="spiderrobinson.com">Melancholy Elephants</a> [spiderrobinson.com].  Say what you will about the man's politics (I happen to disagree with him on several things) but the man is a flipping prophet when it comes to the issue of copyright law and art.  It's only a matter of time before people start blowing their brains out over this kind of stuff.</p><p>
--bornagainpenguin</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a couple problems with writing , recording , and self-publishing your own album : How do you promote it ?
The major labels have a lock on MTV , FM radio , and XM radio , the traditional ways to discover popular music .
I 'm karma-whoring with this post , but the question must be asked--what does MTV have to do with music ?
They have n't played music videos this decade so far as I can tell .
They may have had some input once , but that time is long since past .
No one turns on MTV expecting to hear music any more .
You 'd have more luck finding new music via podcast or from one of the few internet radio stations still able to afford the MAFIAA 's highway robbery .
How do you distribute it to people who do n't have high-speed Internet access ?
The major labels have a lock on Walmart * and Best Buy , and some genres ( such as country music ) would appear to be more popular among people who live in areas where dial-up is the fastest ( miles from the closest DSLAM , and no cable TV available ) .
If you 're self-published , then you have to work the podcast circuit , the myspace music scene , sell what you can at shows along with t-shirts , etc .
Its more difficult and you may never get to live like an RIAA star , but at least you know what you make is yours and your fans like your music , not your publicist .
; ) Besides , those guys who live like that on the RIAA 's dime are really just living on fool 's gold--all the money they 're spending is a loan at incredible interest that they only hope they can pay off before their contract is up .
Many of those artists end up heavily in debt to the MAFIAA and for every star you know who makes it , there are bunches of whom die penniless .
There 's a reason why the Rolling Stones go on tour every so many years you know... The money does n't last and there 's no pension so its off to the studio and onwards for another " good bye " tour.. . How do you plan to avoid or defend copyright lawsuits in case part of your song happens to coincidentally match the hook of a song that was played on the radio ?
Compare Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music .
You do n't .
You could n't afford the lawsuit any way--the only ones who get anything out of a lawsuit like that are the lawyers .
Besides , nine times out of ten its impossible to know if you 've unknowingly recreated a hook or not until someone shows it to you .
Read Spider Robinson 's Melancholy Elephants [ spiderrobinson.com ] .
Say what you will about the man 's politics ( I happen to disagree with him on several things ) but the man is a flipping prophet when it comes to the issue of copyright law and art .
It 's only a matter of time before people start blowing their brains out over this kind of stuff .
--bornagainpenguin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a couple problems with writing, recording, and self-publishing your own album:
How do you promote it?
The major labels have a lock on MTV, FM radio, and XM radio, the traditional ways to discover popular music.
I'm karma-whoring with this post, but the question must be asked--what does MTV have to do with music?
They haven't played music videos this decade so far as I can tell.
They may have had some input once, but that time is long since past.
No one turns on MTV expecting to hear music any more.
You'd have more luck finding new music via podcast or from one of the few internet radio stations still able to afford the MAFIAA's highway robbery.
How do you distribute it to people who don't have high-speed Internet access?
The major labels have a lock on Walmart* and Best Buy, and some genres (such as country music) would appear to be more popular among people who live in areas where dial-up is the fastest (miles from the closest DSLAM, and no cable TV available).
If you're self-published, then you have to work the podcast circuit, the myspace music scene, sell what you can at shows along with t-shirts, etc.
Its more difficult and you may never get to live like an RIAA star, but at least you know what you make is yours and your fans like your music, not your publicist.
;)
Besides, those guys who live like that on the RIAA's dime are really just living on fool's gold--all the money they're spending is a loan at incredible interest that they only hope they can pay off before their contract is up.
Many of those artists end up heavily in debt to the MAFIAA and for every star you know who makes it, there are bunches of whom die penniless.
There's a reason why the Rolling Stones go on tour every so many years you know...  The money doesn't last and there's no pension so its off to the studio and onwards for another "good bye" tour...
How do you plan to avoid or defend copyright lawsuits in case part of your song happens to coincidentally match the hook of a song that was played on the radio?
Compare Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
You don't.
You couldn't afford the lawsuit any way--the only ones who get anything out of a lawsuit like that are the lawyers.
Besides, nine times out of ten its impossible to know if you've unknowingly recreated a hook or not until someone shows it to you.
Read Spider Robinson's Melancholy Elephants [spiderrobinson.com].
Say what you will about the man's politics (I happen to disagree with him on several things) but the man is a flipping prophet when it comes to the issue of copyright law and art.
It's only a matter of time before people start blowing their brains out over this kind of stuff.
--bornagainpenguin
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324040</id>
	<title>stale product</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1259943900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The primary difference between movies and music is that movies are most often released to the retail chain as a stale product, i.e. they have already made most of the money they are going to make and are only released to make additional profits.  OTOH, music has to make expenses and profits sold at this level.
<p>
Another difference is that music is still produced as an 'album', with al the related expenses, but is now often sold as tracks. This means that some tracks probably are required to cover some of the expenses of other tracks.  OTOH, movies as still sold as complete units, and are sometimes bundled with other units to generate additional profits, not cover basic expenses.
</p><p>
The other difference is that music has been sold directly to masses for a few generations, so the incumbents has gotten used to this as the normal situation.  OTOH, movies has only been sold to the masses at the retail level for a generation or two.  Prior to the 80's, movies were sold to first run theaters, then a series of lower priced venues, then to TV.  Even in the 80's, with  VCRs, there was still an debate whether a movie should be 'priced to sell' or 'priced to rent'.  It was not uncommon for a movie to be priced $50-$100.
</p><p>
I do not see that bluray is going to be a big format.  We have music players which changed the music industry, and we are not going to be told what we must have to watch a movie.  I think the anti-piracy push of the industry shows they get this.  They want to keep video cameras out of movie theaters, to protect the real profit centers.  They want to stop free video streaming, so they can develop that profit center.  An amazing number of movies and tv are available for streaming. This, of course is made possible by extremely tight DRM, another thing the music biz does not have, and something, I think, the video biz will have to give up in time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary difference between movies and music is that movies are most often released to the retail chain as a stale product , i.e .
they have already made most of the money they are going to make and are only released to make additional profits .
OTOH , music has to make expenses and profits sold at this level .
Another difference is that music is still produced as an 'album ' , with al the related expenses , but is now often sold as tracks .
This means that some tracks probably are required to cover some of the expenses of other tracks .
OTOH , movies as still sold as complete units , and are sometimes bundled with other units to generate additional profits , not cover basic expenses .
The other difference is that music has been sold directly to masses for a few generations , so the incumbents has gotten used to this as the normal situation .
OTOH , movies has only been sold to the masses at the retail level for a generation or two .
Prior to the 80 's , movies were sold to first run theaters , then a series of lower priced venues , then to TV .
Even in the 80 's , with VCRs , there was still an debate whether a movie should be 'priced to sell ' or 'priced to rent' .
It was not uncommon for a movie to be priced $ 50- $ 100 .
I do not see that bluray is going to be a big format .
We have music players which changed the music industry , and we are not going to be told what we must have to watch a movie .
I think the anti-piracy push of the industry shows they get this .
They want to keep video cameras out of movie theaters , to protect the real profit centers .
They want to stop free video streaming , so they can develop that profit center .
An amazing number of movies and tv are available for streaming .
This , of course is made possible by extremely tight DRM , another thing the music biz does not have , and something , I think , the video biz will have to give up in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary difference between movies and music is that movies are most often released to the retail chain as a stale product, i.e.
they have already made most of the money they are going to make and are only released to make additional profits.
OTOH, music has to make expenses and profits sold at this level.
Another difference is that music is still produced as an 'album', with al the related expenses, but is now often sold as tracks.
This means that some tracks probably are required to cover some of the expenses of other tracks.
OTOH, movies as still sold as complete units, and are sometimes bundled with other units to generate additional profits, not cover basic expenses.
The other difference is that music has been sold directly to masses for a few generations, so the incumbents has gotten used to this as the normal situation.
OTOH, movies has only been sold to the masses at the retail level for a generation or two.
Prior to the 80's, movies were sold to first run theaters, then a series of lower priced venues, then to TV.
Even in the 80's, with  VCRs, there was still an debate whether a movie should be 'priced to sell' or 'priced to rent'.
It was not uncommon for a movie to be priced $50-$100.
I do not see that bluray is going to be a big format.
We have music players which changed the music industry, and we are not going to be told what we must have to watch a movie.
I think the anti-piracy push of the industry shows they get this.
They want to keep video cameras out of movie theaters, to protect the real profit centers.
They want to stop free video streaming, so they can develop that profit center.
An amazing number of movies and tv are available for streaming.
This, of course is made possible by extremely tight DRM, another thing the music biz does not have, and something, I think, the video biz will have to give up in time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324054</id>
	<title>Download Size, Replays, Technology</title>
	<author>llZENll</author>
	<datestamp>1259943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can download all the music you will ever listen to in one day from torrents.  New movies come out every day and watching the same ones over is boring, downloading a HD movie or even a 1GB DVD rip still takes a while and is a pain for only one viewing.  We reached the limits of the human ear a long time ago with mass produced audio technology.  Movies aren't even close, we still need: better color and contrast, more resolution, 3D, holographic, sensual, etc.  There are 100 years of more upgrades for movies to go through, which will drag the consumer through new formats and technologies which requires upgrading on all fronts, and money to be spent and made.  With music this vanished with the CD 20 years ago.  Eventually download speeds will catch up with current formats, but by the time that happens there will be a new format, for example for 3d, which will be huge and simply easier to buy or rent than download.</p><p>Moves: View Once, Large Download, Technological reasons to upgrade.<br>Music: Listen Forever, Small Download, No reason to upgrade ever again with the invention of the CD.</p><p>It's pretty simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can download all the music you will ever listen to in one day from torrents .
New movies come out every day and watching the same ones over is boring , downloading a HD movie or even a 1GB DVD rip still takes a while and is a pain for only one viewing .
We reached the limits of the human ear a long time ago with mass produced audio technology .
Movies are n't even close , we still need : better color and contrast , more resolution , 3D , holographic , sensual , etc .
There are 100 years of more upgrades for movies to go through , which will drag the consumer through new formats and technologies which requires upgrading on all fronts , and money to be spent and made .
With music this vanished with the CD 20 years ago .
Eventually download speeds will catch up with current formats , but by the time that happens there will be a new format , for example for 3d , which will be huge and simply easier to buy or rent than download.Moves : View Once , Large Download , Technological reasons to upgrade.Music : Listen Forever , Small Download , No reason to upgrade ever again with the invention of the CD.It 's pretty simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can download all the music you will ever listen to in one day from torrents.
New movies come out every day and watching the same ones over is boring, downloading a HD movie or even a 1GB DVD rip still takes a while and is a pain for only one viewing.
We reached the limits of the human ear a long time ago with mass produced audio technology.
Movies aren't even close, we still need: better color and contrast, more resolution, 3D, holographic, sensual, etc.
There are 100 years of more upgrades for movies to go through, which will drag the consumer through new formats and technologies which requires upgrading on all fronts, and money to be spent and made.
With music this vanished with the CD 20 years ago.
Eventually download speeds will catch up with current formats, but by the time that happens there will be a new format, for example for 3d, which will be huge and simply easier to buy or rent than download.Moves: View Once, Large Download, Technological reasons to upgrade.Music: Listen Forever, Small Download, No reason to upgrade ever again with the invention of the CD.It's pretty simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324168</id>
	<title>Music vs. Movies</title>
	<author>BigBlueOx</author>
	<datestamp>1259944500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, one big difference between music and movies is that I still occasionally hear new music I like.<br>
<br>
When was the last time a new movie came out that I was even mildly interested in seeing? Donnie Darko? How long ago was that??<br>
<br>
Hey! That's my lawn! Get off!! Pesky kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one big difference between music and movies is that I still occasionally hear new music I like .
When was the last time a new movie came out that I was even mildly interested in seeing ?
Donnie Darko ?
How long ago was that ? ?
Hey ! That 's my lawn !
Get off ! !
Pesky kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one big difference between music and movies is that I still occasionally hear new music I like.
When was the last time a new movie came out that I was even mildly interested in seeing?
Donnie Darko?
How long ago was that??
Hey! That's my lawn!
Get off!!
Pesky kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324694</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1259946840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Make film (Citizen Kane2, The Reckoning: starring Adam Sandler or something).</p></div><p>Hah! I've found you out, AWESOME-O! Now, back to the storage unit with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Make film ( Citizen Kane2 , The Reckoning : starring Adam Sandler or something ) .Hah !
I 've found you out , AWESOME-O !
Now , back to the storage unit with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Make film (Citizen Kane2, The Reckoning: starring Adam Sandler or something).Hah!
I've found you out, AWESOME-O!
Now, back to the storage unit with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329422</id>
	<title>The movie industry is hurting itself</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259923620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Movies were at one time, and in many cases still are, "an event" or "an experience."  Music is... well, just music for most people... it fills the empty spaces of time with a rhythm for life to make the work day or the commute a bit more bearable.  For most, music is a backdrop.</p><p>Movies require focus and attention.  Significant amounts of a person's time and attention are drawn to this medium.  But the industry actually cheapens the experience significantly.</p><p>People wait in line for hours... even days and I have heard weeks for some movies to come out to theaters.  Putting a movie out on DVD was once heavily delayed so as not to detract from the "movies is an event" notion.  But lately, the delay between theater and DVD is shorter and shorter.  I think, perhaps, it is linked to their desire to get more sales numbers for the year.  (There was a time when business/industry had 5 year plans and had patience when executing them.  Now the metric for success is "growth" which is literally impossible to maintain indefinitely and so they hunger for more and exploit everything they can to get it.)  In any case, as long as the delay between the silver screen and the big screen at home is shorter, lots of people are waiting.</p><p>I deny vehemently that the ability to download movies over the internet, for free or otherwise, hurts sales.  People who watch movies in the theater still buy DVDs.  People who buy DVDs aren't likely to download, but people who download are likely to buy DVDs.  The only controlling factor in my opinion is QUALITY and there is a lot of reason for the lack of quality and most of it has to do with minimizing risk.  New ideas are risky.  Old ideas aren't... well... actually, old ideas are risky too, but perhaps more manageable.  Either way, people are not getting excited about the movies any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Movies were at one time , and in many cases still are , " an event " or " an experience .
" Music is... well , just music for most people... it fills the empty spaces of time with a rhythm for life to make the work day or the commute a bit more bearable .
For most , music is a backdrop.Movies require focus and attention .
Significant amounts of a person 's time and attention are drawn to this medium .
But the industry actually cheapens the experience significantly.People wait in line for hours... even days and I have heard weeks for some movies to come out to theaters .
Putting a movie out on DVD was once heavily delayed so as not to detract from the " movies is an event " notion .
But lately , the delay between theater and DVD is shorter and shorter .
I think , perhaps , it is linked to their desire to get more sales numbers for the year .
( There was a time when business/industry had 5 year plans and had patience when executing them .
Now the metric for success is " growth " which is literally impossible to maintain indefinitely and so they hunger for more and exploit everything they can to get it .
) In any case , as long as the delay between the silver screen and the big screen at home is shorter , lots of people are waiting.I deny vehemently that the ability to download movies over the internet , for free or otherwise , hurts sales .
People who watch movies in the theater still buy DVDs .
People who buy DVDs are n't likely to download , but people who download are likely to buy DVDs .
The only controlling factor in my opinion is QUALITY and there is a lot of reason for the lack of quality and most of it has to do with minimizing risk .
New ideas are risky .
Old ideas are n't... well... actually , old ideas are risky too , but perhaps more manageable .
Either way , people are not getting excited about the movies any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Movies were at one time, and in many cases still are, "an event" or "an experience.
"  Music is... well, just music for most people... it fills the empty spaces of time with a rhythm for life to make the work day or the commute a bit more bearable.
For most, music is a backdrop.Movies require focus and attention.
Significant amounts of a person's time and attention are drawn to this medium.
But the industry actually cheapens the experience significantly.People wait in line for hours... even days and I have heard weeks for some movies to come out to theaters.
Putting a movie out on DVD was once heavily delayed so as not to detract from the "movies is an event" notion.
But lately, the delay between theater and DVD is shorter and shorter.
I think, perhaps, it is linked to their desire to get more sales numbers for the year.
(There was a time when business/industry had 5 year plans and had patience when executing them.
Now the metric for success is "growth" which is literally impossible to maintain indefinitely and so they hunger for more and exploit everything they can to get it.
)  In any case, as long as the delay between the silver screen and the big screen at home is shorter, lots of people are waiting.I deny vehemently that the ability to download movies over the internet, for free or otherwise, hurts sales.
People who watch movies in the theater still buy DVDs.
People who buy DVDs aren't likely to download, but people who download are likely to buy DVDs.
The only controlling factor in my opinion is QUALITY and there is a lot of reason for the lack of quality and most of it has to do with minimizing risk.
New ideas are risky.
Old ideas aren't... well... actually, old ideas are risky too, but perhaps more manageable.
Either way, people are not getting excited about the movies any more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324670</id>
	<title>It's about copying</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259946780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason Audio CDs are popular with consumers today is that you can copy them. The same is true of the unencrypted MP3. I know that if I want to make a tape, or an mp3, or a FLAC for my own personal purposes, I can do that from a CD that deserves to wear the COMPACT DISC DIGITAL AUDIO logo.</p><p>The reason Audio CDs are popular with record labels today is that they are cheap to make. It's worth it to put out an easily-copyable format if you can shovel schlock along with the tracks people actually want. CD singles are sold at exorbitant prices to keep profit margins high.</p><p>We got used to copying music when the cassette tape became the dominant physical format; it had some advantages that I miss very much but which don't really apply today. Instead of being able to reuse tapes, we can avoid buying physical media altogether. It would be very nice to have a new, smaller physical format for audio; I've been buying even small-capacity MiniSD and MicroSD cards whenever I find them for a dollar or two so that if I want to give someone some data I can do it without involving the internet. It's not like they take up a lot of space<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Movies are a bit more of a PITA to copy, at the minimum you need to frequently update software if you want to copy current movies... which you probably do, if you have children and allow them anywhere near any optical media. Hell, I know lots of adults that I don't want touching my discs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason Audio CDs are popular with consumers today is that you can copy them .
The same is true of the unencrypted MP3 .
I know that if I want to make a tape , or an mp3 , or a FLAC for my own personal purposes , I can do that from a CD that deserves to wear the COMPACT DISC DIGITAL AUDIO logo.The reason Audio CDs are popular with record labels today is that they are cheap to make .
It 's worth it to put out an easily-copyable format if you can shovel schlock along with the tracks people actually want .
CD singles are sold at exorbitant prices to keep profit margins high.We got used to copying music when the cassette tape became the dominant physical format ; it had some advantages that I miss very much but which do n't really apply today .
Instead of being able to reuse tapes , we can avoid buying physical media altogether .
It would be very nice to have a new , smaller physical format for audio ; I 've been buying even small-capacity MiniSD and MicroSD cards whenever I find them for a dollar or two so that if I want to give someone some data I can do it without involving the internet .
It 's not like they take up a lot of space : ) Movies are a bit more of a PITA to copy , at the minimum you need to frequently update software if you want to copy current movies... which you probably do , if you have children and allow them anywhere near any optical media .
Hell , I know lots of adults that I do n't want touching my discs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason Audio CDs are popular with consumers today is that you can copy them.
The same is true of the unencrypted MP3.
I know that if I want to make a tape, or an mp3, or a FLAC for my own personal purposes, I can do that from a CD that deserves to wear the COMPACT DISC DIGITAL AUDIO logo.The reason Audio CDs are popular with record labels today is that they are cheap to make.
It's worth it to put out an easily-copyable format if you can shovel schlock along with the tracks people actually want.
CD singles are sold at exorbitant prices to keep profit margins high.We got used to copying music when the cassette tape became the dominant physical format; it had some advantages that I miss very much but which don't really apply today.
Instead of being able to reuse tapes, we can avoid buying physical media altogether.
It would be very nice to have a new, smaller physical format for audio; I've been buying even small-capacity MiniSD and MicroSD cards whenever I find them for a dollar or two so that if I want to give someone some data I can do it without involving the internet.
It's not like they take up a lot of space :)Movies are a bit more of a PITA to copy, at the minimum you need to frequently update software if you want to copy current movies... which you probably do, if you have children and allow them anywhere near any optical media.
Hell, I know lots of adults that I don't want touching my discs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324738</id>
	<title>Re:I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1259947020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of us sit with the child in question, and watch the films with them. There's no need to be so disparaging - children have a much higher tolerance for (and desire to) watch the same films time and time again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us sit with the child in question , and watch the films with them .
There 's no need to be so disparaging - children have a much higher tolerance for ( and desire to ) watch the same films time and time again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us sit with the child in question, and watch the films with them.
There's no need to be so disparaging - children have a much higher tolerance for (and desire to) watch the same films time and time again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323918</id>
	<title>Duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've argued this for years.  CDs and their predecessors are collections of individual performances, with a few exceptions.  The music industry has made an entire business model on selling an expensive set based on the saleability of a single unit.  That is, they sell albums based on people wanting just one or two songs.</p><p>Movies are not like that.  As much as people like to joke that much coming out of Hollywood has 5 minutes of entertainment lost in 2+ hours of bad acting, poor dialog and non-existent plot, no one is really interested in seeing just trailers.</p><p>Add to that the perceived value by the audience.  I can go to the store to but a DVD of a 2+ hour performance, or a CD of a dozen 2+ minute performances for about the same price.  Why does a movie that cost $100 million to produce cost the same as a music CD that maybe cost $10 million (or $1 million, or less)?  The movie industry isn't going broke, so the music industry must have INCREDIBLE profit margins and is screwing over the consumer like nobody's business!</p><p>Good music can be produced for next to nothing, whereas it is much more difficult to do that with movies.  A song or album can be credibly done by an INDIVIDUAL, or maybe a band and a few extra people to produce.  Ten people, tops, unless they're padding it.  No sets to build, to props to make, etc.</p><p>The whole music industry argument that the movie industry is just like them and "next is just FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've argued this for years .
CDs and their predecessors are collections of individual performances , with a few exceptions .
The music industry has made an entire business model on selling an expensive set based on the saleability of a single unit .
That is , they sell albums based on people wanting just one or two songs.Movies are not like that .
As much as people like to joke that much coming out of Hollywood has 5 minutes of entertainment lost in 2 + hours of bad acting , poor dialog and non-existent plot , no one is really interested in seeing just trailers.Add to that the perceived value by the audience .
I can go to the store to but a DVD of a 2 + hour performance , or a CD of a dozen 2 + minute performances for about the same price .
Why does a movie that cost $ 100 million to produce cost the same as a music CD that maybe cost $ 10 million ( or $ 1 million , or less ) ?
The movie industry is n't going broke , so the music industry must have INCREDIBLE profit margins and is screwing over the consumer like nobody 's business ! Good music can be produced for next to nothing , whereas it is much more difficult to do that with movies .
A song or album can be credibly done by an INDIVIDUAL , or maybe a band and a few extra people to produce .
Ten people , tops , unless they 're padding it .
No sets to build , to props to make , etc.The whole music industry argument that the movie industry is just like them and " next is just FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've argued this for years.
CDs and their predecessors are collections of individual performances, with a few exceptions.
The music industry has made an entire business model on selling an expensive set based on the saleability of a single unit.
That is, they sell albums based on people wanting just one or two songs.Movies are not like that.
As much as people like to joke that much coming out of Hollywood has 5 minutes of entertainment lost in 2+ hours of bad acting, poor dialog and non-existent plot, no one is really interested in seeing just trailers.Add to that the perceived value by the audience.
I can go to the store to but a DVD of a 2+ hour performance, or a CD of a dozen 2+ minute performances for about the same price.
Why does a movie that cost $100 million to produce cost the same as a music CD that maybe cost $10 million (or $1 million, or less)?
The movie industry isn't going broke, so the music industry must have INCREDIBLE profit margins and is screwing over the consumer like nobody's business!Good music can be produced for next to nothing, whereas it is much more difficult to do that with movies.
A song or album can be credibly done by an INDIVIDUAL, or maybe a band and a few extra people to produce.
Ten people, tops, unless they're padding it.
No sets to build, to props to make, etc.The whole music industry argument that the movie industry is just like them and "next is just FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840</id>
	<title>PSN's video store</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was horrified when I saw some of the prices on the PSN video store. &pound;2.50 to rent Zoolander. In the UK, that film is on TV every other weekend and then DVD is probably onto &pound;3.99. There's no way I'd rent that, much less fork out the &pound;6.99 for the SD version.</p><p>That said, with proper 3D movies coming into play, I'm quite willing to still go to the cinema, sure I find the price quite high but if you haven't seen a 3D film yet I urge you to go and see one, it's very rare that I'm impressed with technology but this is something else.</p><p>Movies are definitely not like music, except it would be nice if you could download your favourite single episode of Family Guy, The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory instead of having to fork for the box set (or can you already do this).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was horrified when I saw some of the prices on the PSN video store .
  2.50 to rent Zoolander .
In the UK , that film is on TV every other weekend and then DVD is probably onto   3.99 .
There 's no way I 'd rent that , much less fork out the   6.99 for the SD version.That said , with proper 3D movies coming into play , I 'm quite willing to still go to the cinema , sure I find the price quite high but if you have n't seen a 3D film yet I urge you to go and see one , it 's very rare that I 'm impressed with technology but this is something else.Movies are definitely not like music , except it would be nice if you could download your favourite single episode of Family Guy , The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory instead of having to fork for the box set ( or can you already do this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was horrified when I saw some of the prices on the PSN video store.
£2.50 to rent Zoolander.
In the UK, that film is on TV every other weekend and then DVD is probably onto £3.99.
There's no way I'd rent that, much less fork out the £6.99 for the SD version.That said, with proper 3D movies coming into play, I'm quite willing to still go to the cinema, sure I find the price quite high but if you haven't seen a 3D film yet I urge you to go and see one, it's very rare that I'm impressed with technology but this is something else.Movies are definitely not like music, except it would be nice if you could download your favourite single episode of Family Guy, The Simpsons or The Big Bang Theory instead of having to fork for the box set (or can you already do this).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324320</id>
	<title>Re:I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1259945220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose little kids wouldn't appreciate Tarantino's style of dialog but that shouldn't stop them from enjoying the film.</p><p>I grew up watching Terminator, Rambo, Conan, Predator and their like. No harm done there. Kill Bill would probably be better for them in the long run compared what passes for kid shows these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose little kids would n't appreciate Tarantino 's style of dialog but that should n't stop them from enjoying the film.I grew up watching Terminator , Rambo , Conan , Predator and their like .
No harm done there .
Kill Bill would probably be better for them in the long run compared what passes for kid shows these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose little kids wouldn't appreciate Tarantino's style of dialog but that shouldn't stop them from enjoying the film.I grew up watching Terminator, Rambo, Conan, Predator and their like.
No harm done there.
Kill Bill would probably be better for them in the long run compared what passes for kid shows these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323930</id>
	<title>Re:Gaming,</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1259943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apples and oranges.  You might as well say that ice cream sales are faltering because more people are buying burgers.  A $10 bargain bin or budget game might give me 30 hours of entertainment, while a $10 movie might give me 2 hours, but its different type of entertainment so I'm not going to be choosing between them.  So I'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game, instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apples and oranges .
You might as well say that ice cream sales are faltering because more people are buying burgers .
A $ 10 bargain bin or budget game might give me 30 hours of entertainment , while a $ 10 movie might give me 2 hours , but its different type of entertainment so I 'm not going to be choosing between them .
So I 'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game , instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apples and oranges.
You might as well say that ice cream sales are faltering because more people are buying burgers.
A $10 bargain bin or budget game might give me 30 hours of entertainment, while a $10 movie might give me 2 hours, but its different type of entertainment so I'm not going to be choosing between them.
So I'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game, instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329886</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259925780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ellipsis: the thinking man's comma.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ellipsis : the thinking man 's comma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ellipsis: the thinking man's comma.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324424</id>
	<title>Re:Gaming,</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1259945700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do they get into the fact the people are wasting there time and entertainment budgets on gaming?</p><p>Can't go see a movie when you are busy playing CoD:MW2 or Tekken 6 or etc.</p><p>Also at 60$ a Crack you might be hurting for expendable cash.</p></div><p>Different demographics for film than for gaming. Hmmn, this is good, really: if the otherwise-low-attention-span explosion-loving young-adult male demo drops out of the film market equation, then the rest of the population becomes the dominant market - which may explain why more indie films are getting produced each year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they get into the fact the people are wasting there time and entertainment budgets on gaming ? Ca n't go see a movie when you are busy playing CoD : MW2 or Tekken 6 or etc.Also at 60 $ a Crack you might be hurting for expendable cash.Different demographics for film than for gaming .
Hmmn , this is good , really : if the otherwise-low-attention-span explosion-loving young-adult male demo drops out of the film market equation , then the rest of the population becomes the dominant market - which may explain why more indie films are getting produced each year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they get into the fact the people are wasting there time and entertainment budgets on gaming?Can't go see a movie when you are busy playing CoD:MW2 or Tekken 6 or etc.Also at 60$ a Crack you might be hurting for expendable cash.Different demographics for film than for gaming.
Hmmn, this is good, really: if the otherwise-low-attention-span explosion-loving young-adult male demo drops out of the film market equation, then the rest of the population becomes the dominant market - which may explain why more indie films are getting produced each year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324400</id>
	<title>DRM worked</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1259945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dare I say it on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for movies, DRM worked.</p><p>(Yes I know there are exceptions to what I'm about to say. I'm trying to make a point, not write a voluminous tome of completeness.)</p><p>A CD contains the complete content, uncompressed, with no DRM. Save for a few technical arguments that make most peoples' eyes roll, nothing in audio is better. CD drives are ubiquitous. You can take any CD and pop it into any computer and with few, if any, clicks it is copied into your computer and you never need touch that CD again. Thanks to no DRM, it's so easy to copy/rip a CD it's almost hard not to.</p><p>A DVD contains a fraction of the content, with DRM. Until we can distribute uncompressed UDTV-format video content for pennies, we'll keep getting upgrades. DVD drives are close to ubiquitous. While you can take any DVD and pop it into any computer to view, copying that DVD onto your computer requires non-trivial technically-illegal software with the user understanding technical obscurities. Thanks to DRM, most people are incapable of copying/ripping DVDs.</p><p>Yes, many on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. know how to beat DVD DRM. Some of us even have the <a href="http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/tshirt\_back.jpg" title="cmu.edu">T-shirt</a> [cmu.edu] to prove it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but it's not <i>trivial</i>, it's not something so easy that it's almost unavoidable. The vast majority of users not only don't have a "video jukebox" set up on their PC, they wouldn't have a clue how to start.</p><p>Upshot is: DRM worked. DVD CSS did its job. And the reason "movies are not exactly like music", for purposes of this thread, is that thanks to DRM, DVDs resist ripping, while CDs practically encourage it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dare I say it on / .
but ... for movies , DRM worked .
( Yes I know there are exceptions to what I 'm about to say .
I 'm trying to make a point , not write a voluminous tome of completeness .
) A CD contains the complete content , uncompressed , with no DRM .
Save for a few technical arguments that make most peoples ' eyes roll , nothing in audio is better .
CD drives are ubiquitous .
You can take any CD and pop it into any computer and with few , if any , clicks it is copied into your computer and you never need touch that CD again .
Thanks to no DRM , it 's so easy to copy/rip a CD it 's almost hard not to.A DVD contains a fraction of the content , with DRM .
Until we can distribute uncompressed UDTV-format video content for pennies , we 'll keep getting upgrades .
DVD drives are close to ubiquitous .
While you can take any DVD and pop it into any computer to view , copying that DVD onto your computer requires non-trivial technically-illegal software with the user understanding technical obscurities .
Thanks to DRM , most people are incapable of copying/ripping DVDs.Yes , many on / .
know how to beat DVD DRM .
Some of us even have the T-shirt [ cmu.edu ] to prove it .
...but it 's not trivial , it 's not something so easy that it 's almost unavoidable .
The vast majority of users not only do n't have a " video jukebox " set up on their PC , they would n't have a clue how to start.Upshot is : DRM worked .
DVD CSS did its job .
And the reason " movies are not exactly like music " , for purposes of this thread , is that thanks to DRM , DVDs resist ripping , while CDs practically encourage it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dare I say it on /.
but ... for movies, DRM worked.
(Yes I know there are exceptions to what I'm about to say.
I'm trying to make a point, not write a voluminous tome of completeness.
)A CD contains the complete content, uncompressed, with no DRM.
Save for a few technical arguments that make most peoples' eyes roll, nothing in audio is better.
CD drives are ubiquitous.
You can take any CD and pop it into any computer and with few, if any, clicks it is copied into your computer and you never need touch that CD again.
Thanks to no DRM, it's so easy to copy/rip a CD it's almost hard not to.A DVD contains a fraction of the content, with DRM.
Until we can distribute uncompressed UDTV-format video content for pennies, we'll keep getting upgrades.
DVD drives are close to ubiquitous.
While you can take any DVD and pop it into any computer to view, copying that DVD onto your computer requires non-trivial technically-illegal software with the user understanding technical obscurities.
Thanks to DRM, most people are incapable of copying/ripping DVDs.Yes, many on /.
know how to beat DVD DRM.
Some of us even have the T-shirt [cmu.edu] to prove it.
...but it's not trivial, it's not something so easy that it's almost unavoidable.
The vast majority of users not only don't have a "video jukebox" set up on their PC, they wouldn't have a clue how to start.Upshot is: DRM worked.
DVD CSS did its job.
And the reason "movies are not exactly like music", for purposes of this thread, is that thanks to DRM, DVDs resist ripping, while CDs practically encourage it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086</id>
	<title>Re:DVD Sales Gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259944080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: aren't you therefore stealing $15 (or $30 for Blu-Ray) from the distributor by not paying the full 0-day retail price?

</p><p>No, you say?  But why not?  After all, you're apparently stealing $20 from them if you pay $0 for it, so why aren't you stealing $15 if you pay $5?

</p><p>Let's throw that question open to any distributor executives or their lawyers who happen to be wandering by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : are n't you therefore stealing $ 15 ( or $ 30 for Blu-Ray ) from the distributor by not paying the full 0-day retail price ?
No , you say ?
But why not ?
After all , you 're apparently stealing $ 20 from them if you pay $ 0 for it , so why are n't you stealing $ 15 if you pay $ 5 ?
Let 's throw that question open to any distributor executives or their lawyers who happen to be wandering by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: aren't you therefore stealing $15 (or $30 for Blu-Ray) from the distributor by not paying the full 0-day retail price?
No, you say?
But why not?
After all, you're apparently stealing $20 from them if you pay $0 for it, so why aren't you stealing $15 if you pay $5?
Let's throw that question open to any distributor executives or their lawyers who happen to be wandering by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892</id>
	<title>said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1259943120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Forget chasing 'pirates'. This will save a lot of expensive legal bills. Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.</p><p>2. Make film (Citizen Kane2, The Reckoning: starring Adam Sandler or something).</p><p>3. Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd's. Using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies. Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.</p><p>4. Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...wait a few weeks</p><p>5. Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and, again, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.</p><p>6. Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... wait some more</p><p>7. Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm</p><p>8. Dvd/Bluray boxed sets with extra everything.<br>9. Laugh all the way to the bank (which then gambles half your money away and pays the other half to its CEO).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Forget chasing 'pirates' .
This will save a lot of expensive legal bills .
Cut back drastically on advertising too , as you do n't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.2 .
Make film ( Citizen Kane2 , The Reckoning : starring Adam Sandler or something ) .3 .
Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd 's .
Using the economies of scale , sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies .
Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.4 .
Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd .
...wait a few weeks5 .
Make a nicer , longer dvd cut of the film and , again , sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.6 .
Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price .
.... wait some more7 .
Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm8 .
Dvd/Bluray boxed sets with extra everything.9 .
Laugh all the way to the bank ( which then gambles half your money away and pays the other half to its CEO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Forget chasing 'pirates'.
This will save a lot of expensive legal bills.
Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.2.
Make film (Citizen Kane2, The Reckoning: starring Adam Sandler or something).3.
Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd's.
Using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.
Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.4.
Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd.
...wait a few weeks5.
Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and, again, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.6.
Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price.
.... wait some more7.
Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm8.
Dvd/Bluray boxed sets with extra everything.9.
Laugh all the way to the bank (which then gambles half your money away and pays the other half to its CEO).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324018</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259943840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comment is suggests music is in a better position than movies, completely opposite of the article and business reality. Music is doomed a slow deeath because it's a shit product for the main, and people only want one or two songs from a given band at best. Movies come and go, but make their money on the big screen plus subsequent DVD/blu/rental/ondemand/TV showings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment is suggests music is in a better position than movies , completely opposite of the article and business reality .
Music is doomed a slow deeath because it 's a shit product for the main , and people only want one or two songs from a given band at best .
Movies come and go , but make their money on the big screen plus subsequent DVD/blu/rental/ondemand/TV showings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment is suggests music is in a better position than movies, completely opposite of the article and business reality.
Music is doomed a slow deeath because it's a shit product for the main, and people only want one or two songs from a given band at best.
Movies come and go, but make their money on the big screen plus subsequent DVD/blu/rental/ondemand/TV showings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324644</id>
	<title>Movies are just going to take longer to die</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1259946600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is there are hundreds of web sites you can go to and start downloading a movie.  Generally this can be done within one day of release of the DVD in retail stores.  If movie production companies begin to release a DVD simultaneously with the theater release, the theaters will dry up quickly.</p><p>Today, most people are pretty rude and obnoxious.  The whole "theater" experience can be ruined by a single rude, obnoxious person and your likelyhood of finding someone in the same theater your are in is pretty high these days.  The dedication and professionalism of the theater staff has declined over the years, such that you can usually count on a dirty, messy theater as well.  Once the lights go off that may not matter much, but still unless you are paying premium prices your "theater" experience isn't likely to be that great.  Therefore, anyone with a big-screen TV is likely to want to watch a movie at home rather than the theater, maybe even waiting for the DVD rather than putting up with the theater nonsense.</p><p>I'd say the only thing keeping the theaters going is a monopoly on the early release of a movie.  When that changes, and it likely will, the DVD will replace the theater.  Not only that, but that means the pirated, shared content will be available immediately.  Free is always better than something you have to pay for.  The biggest difference is on the Internet you don't have to use a gun or risk getting caught but you can still steal.  There are plenty of people willing to help out there.</p><p>Yes, movie DRM helps stop casual ripping, but once the movie is ripped by someone, somewhere on the Internet the difficulty is gone.  When it took a week to download a 1GB movie file that was a serious deterrent, but bandwidth for many has grown.  If you can download it in a few hours it is no longer much of a deterrent.</p><p>Bye-bye movie revenue.</p><p>About the only thing that I think might save the high-revenue production of movies is to eliminate DVDs and have theater-only releases.  Once it is in a digital format there is nothing to stop it from being pirated, and so it will be.  However, I doubt this will happen.  And "user-generated content" is just 99\% crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is there are hundreds of web sites you can go to and start downloading a movie .
Generally this can be done within one day of release of the DVD in retail stores .
If movie production companies begin to release a DVD simultaneously with the theater release , the theaters will dry up quickly.Today , most people are pretty rude and obnoxious .
The whole " theater " experience can be ruined by a single rude , obnoxious person and your likelyhood of finding someone in the same theater your are in is pretty high these days .
The dedication and professionalism of the theater staff has declined over the years , such that you can usually count on a dirty , messy theater as well .
Once the lights go off that may not matter much , but still unless you are paying premium prices your " theater " experience is n't likely to be that great .
Therefore , anyone with a big-screen TV is likely to want to watch a movie at home rather than the theater , maybe even waiting for the DVD rather than putting up with the theater nonsense.I 'd say the only thing keeping the theaters going is a monopoly on the early release of a movie .
When that changes , and it likely will , the DVD will replace the theater .
Not only that , but that means the pirated , shared content will be available immediately .
Free is always better than something you have to pay for .
The biggest difference is on the Internet you do n't have to use a gun or risk getting caught but you can still steal .
There are plenty of people willing to help out there.Yes , movie DRM helps stop casual ripping , but once the movie is ripped by someone , somewhere on the Internet the difficulty is gone .
When it took a week to download a 1GB movie file that was a serious deterrent , but bandwidth for many has grown .
If you can download it in a few hours it is no longer much of a deterrent.Bye-bye movie revenue.About the only thing that I think might save the high-revenue production of movies is to eliminate DVDs and have theater-only releases .
Once it is in a digital format there is nothing to stop it from being pirated , and so it will be .
However , I doubt this will happen .
And " user-generated content " is just 99 \ % crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is there are hundreds of web sites you can go to and start downloading a movie.
Generally this can be done within one day of release of the DVD in retail stores.
If movie production companies begin to release a DVD simultaneously with the theater release, the theaters will dry up quickly.Today, most people are pretty rude and obnoxious.
The whole "theater" experience can be ruined by a single rude, obnoxious person and your likelyhood of finding someone in the same theater your are in is pretty high these days.
The dedication and professionalism of the theater staff has declined over the years, such that you can usually count on a dirty, messy theater as well.
Once the lights go off that may not matter much, but still unless you are paying premium prices your "theater" experience isn't likely to be that great.
Therefore, anyone with a big-screen TV is likely to want to watch a movie at home rather than the theater, maybe even waiting for the DVD rather than putting up with the theater nonsense.I'd say the only thing keeping the theaters going is a monopoly on the early release of a movie.
When that changes, and it likely will, the DVD will replace the theater.
Not only that, but that means the pirated, shared content will be available immediately.
Free is always better than something you have to pay for.
The biggest difference is on the Internet you don't have to use a gun or risk getting caught but you can still steal.
There are plenty of people willing to help out there.Yes, movie DRM helps stop casual ripping, but once the movie is ripped by someone, somewhere on the Internet the difficulty is gone.
When it took a week to download a 1GB movie file that was a serious deterrent, but bandwidth for many has grown.
If you can download it in a few hours it is no longer much of a deterrent.Bye-bye movie revenue.About the only thing that I think might save the high-revenue production of movies is to eliminate DVDs and have theater-only releases.
Once it is in a digital format there is nothing to stop it from being pirated, and so it will be.
However, I doubt this will happen.
And "user-generated content" is just 99\% crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324414</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1259945640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.</p></div><p>Close but not quite.  Incomplete knowledge of the contents increases a person's desire to hear it.  I have a musician friend who I cannot sit and listen to music with, because as soon as the song plays he skips it.  He already has the song committed to memory and does not need to experience it any more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases , rather than decreases , their desire to hear it.Close but not quite .
Incomplete knowledge of the contents increases a person 's desire to hear it .
I have a musician friend who I can not sit and listen to music with , because as soon as the song plays he skips it .
He already has the song committed to memory and does not need to experience it any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And complete knowledge of the contents of the music increases, rather than decreases, their desire to hear it.Close but not quite.
Incomplete knowledge of the contents increases a person's desire to hear it.
I have a musician friend who I cannot sit and listen to music with, because as soon as the song plays he skips it.
He already has the song committed to memory and does not need to experience it any more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324572</id>
	<title>Re:New physical music media?</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1259946300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how this is another difference between film and music. Popular music audiences don't really care about resolution or sound-quality - they generally want familiarity, reassurance, a sense that they're having fun and fitting in. (Adorno was right about this 70 years ago.) But when they see a film - and really, we're talking about the same people - they <i>do</i> what high <i>visual</i> resolution, excellent camera work (as they understand it), etc. Now, they may have really poor discrimination for quality in script-writing, in narratives, even in the finer aspects of cinematography - they may even be as entirely committed to cliches in film as they are in music - but they do respond positively to higher quality in the delivery medium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how this is another difference between film and music .
Popular music audiences do n't really care about resolution or sound-quality - they generally want familiarity , reassurance , a sense that they 're having fun and fitting in .
( Adorno was right about this 70 years ago .
) But when they see a film - and really , we 're talking about the same people - they do what high visual resolution , excellent camera work ( as they understand it ) , etc .
Now , they may have really poor discrimination for quality in script-writing , in narratives , even in the finer aspects of cinematography - they may even be as entirely committed to cliches in film as they are in music - but they do respond positively to higher quality in the delivery medium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how this is another difference between film and music.
Popular music audiences don't really care about resolution or sound-quality - they generally want familiarity, reassurance, a sense that they're having fun and fitting in.
(Adorno was right about this 70 years ago.
) But when they see a film - and really, we're talking about the same people - they do what high visual resolution, excellent camera work (as they understand it), etc.
Now, they may have really poor discrimination for quality in script-writing, in narratives, even in the finer aspects of cinematography - they may even be as entirely committed to cliches in film as they are in music - but they do respond positively to higher quality in the delivery medium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324250</id>
	<title>Time for a new (old) strategy for music industry?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1259944860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.</p></div><p>Is it time for the music industry to attempt to revert back to putting out "complete albums?" If studios went back to creating albums that uses each song as a piece of a whole, rather than disjointed collections of songs that have no relation to each other, would this increase sales? Would today's listeners be receptive to such an album or have we become to "ADD" to be able to handle listening to a whole album?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unlike CDs , which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.Is it time for the music industry to attempt to revert back to putting out " complete albums ?
" If studios went back to creating albums that uses each song as a piece of a whole , rather than disjointed collections of songs that have no relation to each other , would this increase sales ?
Would today 's listeners be receptive to such an album or have we become to " ADD " to be able to handle listening to a whole album ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.Is it time for the music industry to attempt to revert back to putting out "complete albums?
" If studios went back to creating albums that uses each song as a piece of a whole, rather than disjointed collections of songs that have no relation to each other, would this increase sales?
Would today's listeners be receptive to such an album or have we become to "ADD" to be able to handle listening to a whole album?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326916</id>
	<title>Re:DVD Sales Gap</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1259955900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Stealing" (avoiding the strict semantic issue for now) in my mind implies non-consent from the rights-holder.  If a legally licensed distributor offers you something for $5 then that's their problem how they do or don't make a profit from them.  It's no more immoral to take that deal than it is to download Creative Commons works for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Stealing " ( avoiding the strict semantic issue for now ) in my mind implies non-consent from the rights-holder .
If a legally licensed distributor offers you something for $ 5 then that 's their problem how they do or do n't make a profit from them .
It 's no more immoral to take that deal than it is to download Creative Commons works for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Stealing" (avoiding the strict semantic issue for now) in my mind implies non-consent from the rights-holder.
If a legally licensed distributor offers you something for $5 then that's their problem how they do or don't make a profit from them.
It's no more immoral to take that deal than it is to download Creative Commons works for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329464</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>arndawg</author>
	<datestamp>1259923800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Idiocracy never gets old for me. It's like a new movie everytime. I don't remembrr anyuthg</htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiocracy never gets old for me .
It 's like a new movie everytime .
I do n't remembrr anyuthg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiocracy never gets old for me.
It's like a new movie everytime.
I don't remembrr anyuthg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326376</id>
	<title>Re:DRM worked</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1259953920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so.</p><p>In 1998 this may have been true, but today no one burns a copy of their CD for a friend.  Music piracy is happening on the very same sites that movie piracy is happening on - and if you can figure out how to download and play a song, you can download and play a movie.</p><p>The reason the movie industry isn't going the way of the music industry are more complex than DRM and goes from technical (larger file sizes and crappy compression) to social (the way we enjoy the formats is different) to business (people don't want to pay for current pop music)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so.In 1998 this may have been true , but today no one burns a copy of their CD for a friend .
Music piracy is happening on the very same sites that movie piracy is happening on - and if you can figure out how to download and play a song , you can download and play a movie.The reason the movie industry is n't going the way of the music industry are more complex than DRM and goes from technical ( larger file sizes and crappy compression ) to social ( the way we enjoy the formats is different ) to business ( people do n't want to pay for current pop music )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.In 1998 this may have been true, but today no one burns a copy of their CD for a friend.
Music piracy is happening on the very same sites that movie piracy is happening on - and if you can figure out how to download and play a song, you can download and play a movie.The reason the movie industry isn't going the way of the music industry are more complex than DRM and goes from technical (larger file sizes and crappy compression) to social (the way we enjoy the formats is different) to business (people don't want to pay for current pop music)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324634</id>
	<title>Re:PSN's video store</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259946540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I saw The Lost World in 3D two years ago, it gave me a headache.  The glasses distorted the image in an unpleasant, disorienting fashion.  I decided I would never go see another 3D movie just because it was 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw The Lost World in 3D two years ago , it gave me a headache .
The glasses distorted the image in an unpleasant , disorienting fashion .
I decided I would never go see another 3D movie just because it was 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw The Lost World in 3D two years ago, it gave me a headache.
The glasses distorted the image in an unpleasant, disorienting fashion.
I decided I would never go see another 3D movie just because it was 3D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325538</id>
	<title>Movie disaggregation and cartoon shorts, newsreels</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259950200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day when a movie theater wanted to play a movie, they had to buy a full package, including newsreels and cartoons.</p><p>When a court ruled in the '50s or '60s that this was illegal, that was the beginning of the end of a golden age of cartoons.  That, and television, put newsreels out to pasture.</p><p>Ironically, while movies aren't subject to disaggregation, DVDs which include extras are.  Nothing except a business decision says you can't sell these extra bits as stand-alone items.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day when a movie theater wanted to play a movie , they had to buy a full package , including newsreels and cartoons.When a court ruled in the '50s or '60s that this was illegal , that was the beginning of the end of a golden age of cartoons .
That , and television , put newsreels out to pasture.Ironically , while movies are n't subject to disaggregation , DVDs which include extras are .
Nothing except a business decision says you ca n't sell these extra bits as stand-alone items .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day when a movie theater wanted to play a movie, they had to buy a full package, including newsreels and cartoons.When a court ruled in the '50s or '60s that this was illegal, that was the beginning of the end of a golden age of cartoons.
That, and television, put newsreels out to pasture.Ironically, while movies aren't subject to disaggregation, DVDs which include extras are.
Nothing except a business decision says you can't sell these extra bits as stand-alone items.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836</id>
	<title>Gloomy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>not to be totally gloomy about Hollywood's immediate future</p></div><p>Why would I even care? Seriously. I like movies, but if the big centralized studios vanished and we just had independent filmmakers left I don't think I'd shed any tears. I might actually welcome that just to see what happens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not to be totally gloomy about Hollywood 's immediate futureWhy would I even care ?
Seriously. I like movies , but if the big centralized studios vanished and we just had independent filmmakers left I do n't think I 'd shed any tears .
I might actually welcome that just to see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to be totally gloomy about Hollywood's immediate futureWhy would I even care?
Seriously. I like movies, but if the big centralized studios vanished and we just had independent filmmakers left I don't think I'd shed any tears.
I might actually welcome that just to see what happens.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324116</id>
	<title>go quietly into that good night</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1259944200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The movie business is facing many of the same challenges that are bedeviling music, but it's not about to go quietly into that good night</p></div><p>Music is going completely away? Wow. After several millenia of human musical composition I would have figured the art form had some staying power, but I guess it was a pretty good run after all. Though I must admit I was kind of looking forward to the idea of hearing new music in the future.</p><p>oh well</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie business is facing many of the same challenges that are bedeviling music , but it 's not about to go quietly into that good nightMusic is going completely away ?
Wow. After several millenia of human musical composition I would have figured the art form had some staying power , but I guess it was a pretty good run after all .
Though I must admit I was kind of looking forward to the idea of hearing new music in the future.oh well</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie business is facing many of the same challenges that are bedeviling music, but it's not about to go quietly into that good nightMusic is going completely away?
Wow. After several millenia of human musical composition I would have figured the art form had some staying power, but I guess it was a pretty good run after all.
Though I must admit I was kind of looking forward to the idea of hearing new music in the future.oh well
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324834</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1259947380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Move #7 to #3, otherwise theaters will go out of business.  People will buy the cheap VCD, see the movie, and then not bother going to the theater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Move # 7 to # 3 , otherwise theaters will go out of business .
People will buy the cheap VCD , see the movie , and then not bother going to the theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Move #7 to #3, otherwise theaters will go out of business.
People will buy the cheap VCD, see the movie, and then not bother going to the theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327332</id>
	<title>same economic forces</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1259957700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really changes these businesses is that distribution on-line is dirt cheap and has virtually no cost of entry.  Furthermore, production costs are also falling rapidly.  The movie business is as much subject to that as the music business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What really changes these businesses is that distribution on-line is dirt cheap and has virtually no cost of entry .
Furthermore , production costs are also falling rapidly .
The movie business is as much subject to that as the music business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really changes these businesses is that distribution on-line is dirt cheap and has virtually no cost of entry.
Furthermore, production costs are also falling rapidly.
The movie business is as much subject to that as the music business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323812</id>
	<title>disaggregation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" seems false. What else is YouTube?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" movies are n't amenable to " disaggregation " seems false .
What else is YouTube ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" seems false.
What else is YouTube?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327632</id>
	<title>Re:Music vs. Movies</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259958960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, one big difference between music and movies is that I still occasionally see a new movie I like. Aside from indie music, I haven't heard much this century I like at all.</p><p>When was the last time a new movie came out that I was even mildly interested in seeing? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Trek\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org">Star Trek?</a> [wikipedia.org] How long ago was that?? Um, lets see, I think it was this past spring I saw it at the theater with my youngest daughter? Good flick, too. Lets see, last year it was <i>Gran Torino</i>, year before that it was <i>Live Free or Die Hard</i> (theatrical PG-13 version sucked, unrated DVD version kicked ass).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , one big difference between music and movies is that I still occasionally see a new movie I like .
Aside from indie music , I have n't heard much this century I like at all.When was the last time a new movie came out that I was even mildly interested in seeing ?
Star Trek ?
[ wikipedia.org ] How long ago was that ? ?
Um , lets see , I think it was this past spring I saw it at the theater with my youngest daughter ?
Good flick , too .
Lets see , last year it was Gran Torino , year before that it was Live Free or Die Hard ( theatrical PG-13 version sucked , unrated DVD version kicked ass ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, one big difference between music and movies is that I still occasionally see a new movie I like.
Aside from indie music, I haven't heard much this century I like at all.When was the last time a new movie came out that I was even mildly interested in seeing?
Star Trek?
[wikipedia.org] How long ago was that??
Um, lets see, I think it was this past spring I saw it at the theater with my youngest daughter?
Good flick, too.
Lets see, last year it was Gran Torino, year before that it was Live Free or Die Hard (theatrical PG-13 version sucked, unrated DVD version kicked ass).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324918</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1259947800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gotta disagree.  Songs have gone from 1400 kbit/s CD songs to 128 kbit/s AAC songs.If movies underwent a similar downgrade in quality, instead of ~5 Mbit/s DVD movies you would have 0.45 Mbit/s streaming videos that people could watch in realtime on their computers, televisions, or iPods.  We are now seeing that transition where people download their favorite shows or movies rather than drive to Walmart and buy the media.It had nothing to do with Hollywood or Bluray, but because until recently people didn't have the minimu 0.5 Mbit/s connections.  Now they do.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta disagree .
Songs have gone from 1400 kbit/s CD songs to 128 kbit/s AAC songs.If movies underwent a similar downgrade in quality , instead of ~ 5 Mbit/s DVD movies you would have 0.45 Mbit/s streaming videos that people could watch in realtime on their computers , televisions , or iPods .
We are now seeing that transition where people download their favorite shows or movies rather than drive to Walmart and buy the media.It had nothing to do with Hollywood or Bluray , but because until recently people did n't have the minimu 0.5 Mbit/s connections .
Now they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta disagree.
Songs have gone from 1400 kbit/s CD songs to 128 kbit/s AAC songs.If movies underwent a similar downgrade in quality, instead of ~5 Mbit/s DVD movies you would have 0.45 Mbit/s streaming videos that people could watch in realtime on their computers, televisions, or iPods.
We are now seeing that transition where people download their favorite shows or movies rather than drive to Walmart and buy the media.It had nothing to do with Hollywood or Bluray, but because until recently people didn't have the minimu 0.5 Mbit/s connections.
Now they do.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326504</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>Wildclaw</author>
	<datestamp>1259954340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.</p></div><p>As long as you have strong IP laws, you will have lots of advertising. The reason is simple. Strong IP laws allows for increased margin profits. And higher margin profits, increases the optimum amount of advertising for a product to maximize profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut back drastically on advertising too , as you do n't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.As long as you have strong IP laws , you will have lots of advertising .
The reason is simple .
Strong IP laws allows for increased margin profits .
And higher margin profits , increases the optimum amount of advertising for a product to maximize profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.As long as you have strong IP laws, you will have lots of advertising.
The reason is simple.
Strong IP laws allows for increased margin profits.
And higher margin profits, increases the optimum amount of advertising for a product to maximize profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328934</id>
	<title>completely different</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1259921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Movies and music are two very completely different things, as different as books and music. You listen to music, when you're done listening, you can keep listening to it. You keep the cd in your in your car so you can listen to it on your way to work. You keep a copy at home so you can listen to it when you're relaxing after a long drive. You keep a copy on your mp3 player so you can listen to it while jogging. You keep a copy at work so you can listen to it while slaving. You got a party, you put on your music. Next week you got a party, you can put on the same music.
</p><p>
Not so with movies. You watch a movie, you're pretty much done. You can't invite a bunch of people to have a good time and watch a movie, then invite them again next week to have a good time and watch the same movie. You can't watch movie at work, you can't watch movie while driving. Most Hollywood movies are so bad you can barely stand to watch it in the first place, you don't want to sit through that again. If you really liked it, maybe you might be able to stand watching it again just once more to see if you missed any parts.
</p><p>
Buying movies is a pointless endeavor. This is just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong, maybe people like watching the same movie over and over again.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Movies and music are two very completely different things , as different as books and music .
You listen to music , when you 're done listening , you can keep listening to it .
You keep the cd in your in your car so you can listen to it on your way to work .
You keep a copy at home so you can listen to it when you 're relaxing after a long drive .
You keep a copy on your mp3 player so you can listen to it while jogging .
You keep a copy at work so you can listen to it while slaving .
You got a party , you put on your music .
Next week you got a party , you can put on the same music .
Not so with movies .
You watch a movie , you 're pretty much done .
You ca n't invite a bunch of people to have a good time and watch a movie , then invite them again next week to have a good time and watch the same movie .
You ca n't watch movie at work , you ca n't watch movie while driving .
Most Hollywood movies are so bad you can barely stand to watch it in the first place , you do n't want to sit through that again .
If you really liked it , maybe you might be able to stand watching it again just once more to see if you missed any parts .
Buying movies is a pointless endeavor .
This is just my opinion , maybe I 'm wrong , maybe people like watching the same movie over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Movies and music are two very completely different things, as different as books and music.
You listen to music, when you're done listening, you can keep listening to it.
You keep the cd in your in your car so you can listen to it on your way to work.
You keep a copy at home so you can listen to it when you're relaxing after a long drive.
You keep a copy on your mp3 player so you can listen to it while jogging.
You keep a copy at work so you can listen to it while slaving.
You got a party, you put on your music.
Next week you got a party, you can put on the same music.
Not so with movies.
You watch a movie, you're pretty much done.
You can't invite a bunch of people to have a good time and watch a movie, then invite them again next week to have a good time and watch the same movie.
You can't watch movie at work, you can't watch movie while driving.
Most Hollywood movies are so bad you can barely stand to watch it in the first place, you don't want to sit through that again.
If you really liked it, maybe you might be able to stand watching it again just once more to see if you missed any parts.
Buying movies is a pointless endeavor.
This is just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong, maybe people like watching the same movie over and over again.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324246</id>
	<title>Well, shit...</title>
	<author>ThousandStars</author>
	<datestamp>1259944800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read the title - "Why Movies Are Not Exactly Like Music" - and thought, "If you can't tell the difference, you've got bigger problems than piracy!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the title - " Why Movies Are Not Exactly Like Music " - and thought , " If you ca n't tell the difference , you 've got bigger problems than piracy !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the title - "Why Movies Are Not Exactly Like Music" - and thought, "If you can't tell the difference, you've got bigger problems than piracy!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324712</id>
	<title>Hollywood died when DVDs came out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hollywood made their own bed when DVDs came out. Prior to DVDs, VHS tapes averaged $40-30 a title and Laserdiscs were $50-80 each.  VCRs were $400 and laserdisc players were $1000.  Then, someone got the brilliant idea that you could try to apply economies of scale to DVDs and prices started plummeting.... Hollywood thinking all the time that tey were going to continue to make more money because people would buy more movies... and they did. Only they aren't anymore. You can't apply economies of scale to something you don't use again and again.<br>Normal people ( not geeks, technophiles, AV junies )  buy hundreds of songs, thousands over a life time. You can't apply the same model to Movies. People don't buy hundreds of movies... and most people who do buy alot of movies end up  thinking "why did I buy all these damn movies?" and then stop. The digital rental/subscription market is the future for most movies.<br>There will always be the ones you love that you want to buy and keep forever, but unlike a favorite song, a new movie is a fleeting interest.<br>You don't want to be stuck paying $15 for a digital movie that you end up not liking all that much, but you would pay a $3 rental for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood made their own bed when DVDs came out .
Prior to DVDs , VHS tapes averaged $ 40-30 a title and Laserdiscs were $ 50-80 each .
VCRs were $ 400 and laserdisc players were $ 1000 .
Then , someone got the brilliant idea that you could try to apply economies of scale to DVDs and prices started plummeting.... Hollywood thinking all the time that tey were going to continue to make more money because people would buy more movies... and they did .
Only they are n't anymore .
You ca n't apply economies of scale to something you do n't use again and again.Normal people ( not geeks , technophiles , AV junies ) buy hundreds of songs , thousands over a life time .
You ca n't apply the same model to Movies .
People do n't buy hundreds of movies... and most people who do buy alot of movies end up thinking " why did I buy all these damn movies ?
" and then stop .
The digital rental/subscription market is the future for most movies.There will always be the ones you love that you want to buy and keep forever , but unlike a favorite song , a new movie is a fleeting interest.You do n't want to be stuck paying $ 15 for a digital movie that you end up not liking all that much , but you would pay a $ 3 rental for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood made their own bed when DVDs came out.
Prior to DVDs, VHS tapes averaged $40-30 a title and Laserdiscs were $50-80 each.
VCRs were $400 and laserdisc players were $1000.
Then, someone got the brilliant idea that you could try to apply economies of scale to DVDs and prices started plummeting.... Hollywood thinking all the time that tey were going to continue to make more money because people would buy more movies... and they did.
Only they aren't anymore.
You can't apply economies of scale to something you don't use again and again.Normal people ( not geeks, technophiles, AV junies )  buy hundreds of songs, thousands over a life time.
You can't apply the same model to Movies.
People don't buy hundreds of movies... and most people who do buy alot of movies end up  thinking "why did I buy all these damn movies?
" and then stop.
The digital rental/subscription market is the future for most movies.There will always be the ones you love that you want to buy and keep forever, but unlike a favorite song, a new movie is a fleeting interest.You don't want to be stuck paying $15 for a digital movie that you end up not liking all that much, but you would pay a $3 rental for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324282</id>
	<title>Re:Gloomy?</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1259945040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree mostly, but I think that big studios still have a purpose. I enjoy independent films, but there are also certain types of films that cannot easily be completed by a smaller studio. I.e., films with cutting-edge CGI or larger scale.   In order to sell a film to millions they make it inoffensive which often means boring.  Or they get a big name actor. Or they load it up with CGI. Then they end up with a movie that's interesting in a "Mind's Eye" type of way, but forgettable otherwise.</p><p>The other reason is that, though there are some very good independent film makers, there are LOADS and LOADS of horrible ones. They may be self-financed which can mean that they want the final product to be awesome.... or they make some unwatchable drivel to satisfy an artistic urge.</p><p>IMHO the big studios should invest more in smaller budget films and independent film makers. They do this already, but it seems that many studios stake their financial well-being on one or two blockbusters a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree mostly , but I think that big studios still have a purpose .
I enjoy independent films , but there are also certain types of films that can not easily be completed by a smaller studio .
I.e. , films with cutting-edge CGI or larger scale .
In order to sell a film to millions they make it inoffensive which often means boring .
Or they get a big name actor .
Or they load it up with CGI .
Then they end up with a movie that 's interesting in a " Mind 's Eye " type of way , but forgettable otherwise.The other reason is that , though there are some very good independent film makers , there are LOADS and LOADS of horrible ones .
They may be self-financed which can mean that they want the final product to be awesome.... or they make some unwatchable drivel to satisfy an artistic urge.IMHO the big studios should invest more in smaller budget films and independent film makers .
They do this already , but it seems that many studios stake their financial well-being on one or two blockbusters a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree mostly, but I think that big studios still have a purpose.
I enjoy independent films, but there are also certain types of films that cannot easily be completed by a smaller studio.
I.e., films with cutting-edge CGI or larger scale.
In order to sell a film to millions they make it inoffensive which often means boring.
Or they get a big name actor.
Or they load it up with CGI.
Then they end up with a movie that's interesting in a "Mind's Eye" type of way, but forgettable otherwise.The other reason is that, though there are some very good independent film makers, there are LOADS and LOADS of horrible ones.
They may be self-financed which can mean that they want the final product to be awesome.... or they make some unwatchable drivel to satisfy an artistic urge.IMHO the big studios should invest more in smaller budget films and independent film makers.
They do this already, but it seems that many studios stake their financial well-being on one or two blockbusters a year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324358</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try that with Memento</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try that with Memento</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try that with Memento</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325590</id>
	<title>Re:Music vs. Movies</title>
	<author>kthejoker</author>
	<datestamp>1259950440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, you're gonna say that, when we've had</p><p>No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Up, Ratatouille, Children of Men, Milk, In The Mood For Love, Lord of the Rings, The Incredibles, Dark Knight, Inglorious Basterds, Wall-E, Brick, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, Gone Baby Gone, Amores Perros, Babel, Pan's Labyrinth, A History of Violence, Eastern Promsies, You Can Count On Me, Adaptation., Boy A, Black Hawk Down, Finding Nemo, Coraline, Casino Royale, Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont, Persepolis, Spirited Away, Ponyo, The Pianist, The Lives of Others, Downfall, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Motorcycle Diaries, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Dogville, The Machinist, The Fall, Gran Torino, Far From Heaven, Mystic River, In Bruges, Catch Me If You Can, The Departed, The Royal Tenenbaums, Oldboy, Kill Bill, Walk Hard, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Letters From Iwo Jima, Triplets of Belleville, Monsters Inc, Moon, Toy Story 2, Mulholland Dr, O Brother Where Art Thou, A Simple Man, Once, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn, Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Spider-Man 2, The Aviator, The Bourne trilogy, Fog of War, Capturing the Friedmans, The Hurt Locker, Zodiac, Wallace &amp; Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, The Last Hangman, The Others,The Visitor, Sweeney Todd, Training Day, The Descent, The Counterfeiters, Frost/Nixon, Doubt, Finding Neverland, Pirates of the Caribbean, Hotel Rwanda, Ghost World, Waltz with Bashir, The Station Agent<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>all in the past decade?</p><p>And that's me being kind of stingy with the list! This has been the greatest decade of film of all-time (doesn't have quite the peaks of the 30s or 70s, but all-around it's definitely ahead) and the next decade should only prove more exciting to see what these directors, actors, writers, animators, and (yes) movie studios can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , you 're gon na say that , when we 've hadNo Country For Old Men , There Will Be Blood , Up , Ratatouille , Children of Men , Milk , In The Mood For Love , Lord of the Rings , The Incredibles , Dark Knight , Inglorious Basterds , Wall-E , Brick , The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford , Gone Baby Gone , Amores Perros , Babel , Pan 's Labyrinth , A History of Violence , Eastern Promsies , You Can Count On Me , Adaptation. , Boy A , Black Hawk Down , Finding Nemo , Coraline , Casino Royale , Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont , Persepolis , Spirited Away , Ponyo , The Pianist , The Lives of Others , Downfall , Y Tu Mama Tambien , Motorcycle Diaries , Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind , Dogville , The Machinist , The Fall , Gran Torino , Far From Heaven , Mystic River , In Bruges , Catch Me If You Can , The Departed , The Royal Tenenbaums , Oldboy , Kill Bill , Walk Hard , Kiss Kiss Bang Bang , The Diving Bell and the Butterfly , Letters From Iwo Jima , Triplets of Belleville , Monsters Inc , Moon , Toy Story 2 , Mulholland Dr , O Brother Where Art Thou , A Simple Man , Once , The Prestige , Rescue Dawn , Hot Fuzz , Shaun of the Dead , Spider-Man 2 , The Aviator , The Bourne trilogy , Fog of War , Capturing the Friedmans , The Hurt Locker , Zodiac , Wallace &amp; Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit , The Last Hangman , The Others,The Visitor , Sweeney Todd , Training Day , The Descent , The Counterfeiters , Frost/Nixon , Doubt , Finding Neverland , Pirates of the Caribbean , Hotel Rwanda , Ghost World , Waltz with Bashir , The Station Agent ...all in the past decade ? And that 's me being kind of stingy with the list !
This has been the greatest decade of film of all-time ( does n't have quite the peaks of the 30s or 70s , but all-around it 's definitely ahead ) and the next decade should only prove more exciting to see what these directors , actors , writers , animators , and ( yes ) movie studios can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, you're gonna say that, when we've hadNo Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Up, Ratatouille, Children of Men, Milk, In The Mood For Love, Lord of the Rings, The Incredibles, Dark Knight, Inglorious Basterds, Wall-E, Brick, The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, Gone Baby Gone, Amores Perros, Babel, Pan's Labyrinth, A History of Violence, Eastern Promsies, You Can Count On Me, Adaptation., Boy A, Black Hawk Down, Finding Nemo, Coraline, Casino Royale, Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont, Persepolis, Spirited Away, Ponyo, The Pianist, The Lives of Others, Downfall, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Motorcycle Diaries, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Dogville, The Machinist, The Fall, Gran Torino, Far From Heaven, Mystic River, In Bruges, Catch Me If You Can, The Departed, The Royal Tenenbaums, Oldboy, Kill Bill, Walk Hard, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Letters From Iwo Jima, Triplets of Belleville, Monsters Inc, Moon, Toy Story 2, Mulholland Dr, O Brother Where Art Thou, A Simple Man, Once, The Prestige, Rescue Dawn, Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Spider-Man 2, The Aviator, The Bourne trilogy, Fog of War, Capturing the Friedmans, The Hurt Locker, Zodiac, Wallace &amp; Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, The Last Hangman, The Others,The Visitor, Sweeney Todd, Training Day, The Descent, The Counterfeiters, Frost/Nixon, Doubt, Finding Neverland, Pirates of the Caribbean, Hotel Rwanda, Ghost World, Waltz with Bashir, The Station Agent ...all in the past decade?And that's me being kind of stingy with the list!
This has been the greatest decade of film of all-time (doesn't have quite the peaks of the 30s or 70s, but all-around it's definitely ahead) and the next decade should only prove more exciting to see what these directors, actors, writers, animators, and (yes) movie studios can do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325766</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1259951340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...stretch this over decades and the comparison breaks down a bit.</p><p>Sure if you are only looking at this from the point of view of "this year". Sure it makes sense to think of culture as completely disposable.</p><p>Even something that gets read again is going to collect dust in the meantime.</p><p>With digital media, a lifetime of movies can fit in the extra space inside of a desktop PC.</p><p>It's 3 or 4 Sci-Fi paperbacks worth of space. The entire Dune series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...stretch this over decades and the comparison breaks down a bit.Sure if you are only looking at this from the point of view of " this year " .
Sure it makes sense to think of culture as completely disposable.Even something that gets read again is going to collect dust in the meantime.With digital media , a lifetime of movies can fit in the extra space inside of a desktop PC.It 's 3 or 4 Sci-Fi paperbacks worth of space .
The entire Dune series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...stretch this over decades and the comparison breaks down a bit.Sure if you are only looking at this from the point of view of "this year".
Sure it makes sense to think of culture as completely disposable.Even something that gets read again is going to collect dust in the meantime.With digital media, a lifetime of movies can fit in the extra space inside of a desktop PC.It's 3 or 4 Sci-Fi paperbacks worth of space.
The entire Dune series.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30340858</id>
	<title>Movies are concert like</title>
	<author>Handover Phist</author>
	<datestamp>1260031020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Music concerts aren't dying, just the format od pre-recorded content distributed. Movies wont die either until everyone has a theater in their home. I still buy tickets to concerts (and CDs if the music is worth paying for. Last one was Frou Frou: Details. Older band, one album, but I love Imogen Heaps voice). I've attended every Rush concert performed in my area since 1987, and have the t-shirts to prove it.</p><p>I discovered the previously mentioned album by listening to music through last.fm and soma.fm. I listened to the radio through the intertubes. If they could just figure out that the method of distribution is changing and not the market and not theft, their lives would be good! I remember when I went to a music store to buy music way back when, I talked to the owner about what I wanted, and ended up buying a tape by (long memorial pause) dammit, like Zeppelin but heavier.... dont have it anymore.... Anyways! His big bitch was theft then too. Nothing has changed just the formats.</p><p>Kingdom Come! That was irritating. Glad I didn't wake up in the middle of the night shouting "Kingdom Come!". My wife would have committed me....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Music concerts are n't dying , just the format od pre-recorded content distributed .
Movies wont die either until everyone has a theater in their home .
I still buy tickets to concerts ( and CDs if the music is worth paying for .
Last one was Frou Frou : Details .
Older band , one album , but I love Imogen Heaps voice ) .
I 've attended every Rush concert performed in my area since 1987 , and have the t-shirts to prove it.I discovered the previously mentioned album by listening to music through last.fm and soma.fm .
I listened to the radio through the intertubes .
If they could just figure out that the method of distribution is changing and not the market and not theft , their lives would be good !
I remember when I went to a music store to buy music way back when , I talked to the owner about what I wanted , and ended up buying a tape by ( long memorial pause ) dammit , like Zeppelin but heavier.... dont have it anymore.... Anyways ! His big bitch was theft then too .
Nothing has changed just the formats.Kingdom Come !
That was irritating .
Glad I did n't wake up in the middle of the night shouting " Kingdom Come ! " .
My wife would have committed me... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music concerts aren't dying, just the format od pre-recorded content distributed.
Movies wont die either until everyone has a theater in their home.
I still buy tickets to concerts (and CDs if the music is worth paying for.
Last one was Frou Frou: Details.
Older band, one album, but I love Imogen Heaps voice).
I've attended every Rush concert performed in my area since 1987, and have the t-shirts to prove it.I discovered the previously mentioned album by listening to music through last.fm and soma.fm.
I listened to the radio through the intertubes.
If they could just figure out that the method of distribution is changing and not the market and not theft, their lives would be good!
I remember when I went to a music store to buy music way back when, I talked to the owner about what I wanted, and ended up buying a tape by (long memorial pause) dammit, like Zeppelin but heavier.... dont have it anymore.... Anyways! His big bitch was theft then too.
Nothing has changed just the formats.Kingdom Come!
That was irritating.
Glad I didn't wake up in the middle of the night shouting "Kingdom Come!".
My wife would have committed me....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324472</id>
	<title>Re:Gaming,</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1259945940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apples and oranges.  You might as well say that ice cream sales are faltering because more people are buying burgers.  A $10 bargain bin or budget game might give me 30 hours of entertainment, while a $10 movie might give me 2 hours, but its different type of entertainment so I'm not going to be choosing between them.  So I'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game, instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.</p></div><p>Actually, I think it is a fair comparison...</p><p>At the end of the day/week, when everything is done, I've got some disposable income and some leisure time - both of which are fixed.</p><p>I can choose to spend $20+ to go to the movies with my wife, which will keep us entertained for roughly two hours...  Or I can spend $5 to rent a movie and be entertained for roughly the same amount of time...  Or I can spend $50 on some game and be entertained for 20 hours or so.</p><p>Sure, occasionally there's a movie that looks especially interesting.  Something that you want to see for itself, not just as a diversion.</p><p>But, more often than not, it's a matter of simply being entertained for a period of time.</p><p>And a movie, or television, or going out on a date, or a game, or whatever can all accomplish that just fine.</p><p>So if I've got exactly $50 to spend on entertainment this week - I want to make sure I get as much entertainment out of that money as I can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apples and oranges .
You might as well say that ice cream sales are faltering because more people are buying burgers .
A $ 10 bargain bin or budget game might give me 30 hours of entertainment , while a $ 10 movie might give me 2 hours , but its different type of entertainment so I 'm not going to be choosing between them .
So I 'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game , instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.Actually , I think it is a fair comparison...At the end of the day/week , when everything is done , I 've got some disposable income and some leisure time - both of which are fixed.I can choose to spend $ 20 + to go to the movies with my wife , which will keep us entertained for roughly two hours... Or I can spend $ 5 to rent a movie and be entertained for roughly the same amount of time... Or I can spend $ 50 on some game and be entertained for 20 hours or so.Sure , occasionally there 's a movie that looks especially interesting .
Something that you want to see for itself , not just as a diversion.But , more often than not , it 's a matter of simply being entertained for a period of time.And a movie , or television , or going out on a date , or a game , or whatever can all accomplish that just fine.So if I 've got exactly $ 50 to spend on entertainment this week - I want to make sure I get as much entertainment out of that money as I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apples and oranges.
You might as well say that ice cream sales are faltering because more people are buying burgers.
A $10 bargain bin or budget game might give me 30 hours of entertainment, while a $10 movie might give me 2 hours, but its different type of entertainment so I'm not going to be choosing between them.
So I'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game, instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.Actually, I think it is a fair comparison...At the end of the day/week, when everything is done, I've got some disposable income and some leisure time - both of which are fixed.I can choose to spend $20+ to go to the movies with my wife, which will keep us entertained for roughly two hours...  Or I can spend $5 to rent a movie and be entertained for roughly the same amount of time...  Or I can spend $50 on some game and be entertained for 20 hours or so.Sure, occasionally there's a movie that looks especially interesting.
Something that you want to see for itself, not just as a diversion.But, more often than not, it's a matter of simply being entertained for a period of time.And a movie, or television, or going out on a date, or a game, or whatever can all accomplish that just fine.So if I've got exactly $50 to spend on entertainment this week - I want to make sure I get as much entertainment out of that money as I can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30334336</id>
	<title>thier wildely different!</title>
	<author>ticktickboom</author>
	<datestamp>1260020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when a movie comes out, its around 20-25 dollarrs.  after 2 or 3 weeks, 5 dollars is knocked off the price.  a few months later, another 5...and soon is in the 5 dollar bin, and not even 2 years old.<br>mujsic comes out, brand new cd is 25 bucks (even after the govt told the industry to lower the price, and they promiced tehy would, 25 years ago), and after 6 motn hs or so, the price becomes 16.99.  and stays tehre, for eternity.  i have seen 5 dollar bins at the music store, and its full of the batman soundtrack, nat king cole sings jingle bells, and other assorted novelties.  perhaps they could take a pricing lesson from the movie industry.  you know, lower the price.  if the amount of sales measure into someone being in the top 40, wouldnt it be a good idea to let th e masses buy thier album instead of watching your profits slouch?</p><p>if i owned a company that sold Gizmo.  and the price of the Gizmo stayed basically the same for 30-40 years, accounting inflation n all.  then suddenly people found they could get Gizmo for FREE! at my expence.  i wouldnt blame them.  however the version thier getting is a much less sound quality.  so i only have to look at what i have, a better product with better quality.  maybe if i lowered my price people would buy Gizmo again, and not get it for free.  cuase its something bout the item in hand that makes oine feel that tehy own it.  i know, id lower the price!  maybe afters its been out a while id let it for for only a few dollars.  i dont see the need of charging 17 dollars for a 40 year old gizmo when a new one is 17.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when a movie comes out , its around 20-25 dollarrs .
after 2 or 3 weeks , 5 dollars is knocked off the price .
a few months later , another 5...and soon is in the 5 dollar bin , and not even 2 years old.mujsic comes out , brand new cd is 25 bucks ( even after the govt told the industry to lower the price , and they promiced tehy would , 25 years ago ) , and after 6 motn hs or so , the price becomes 16.99. and stays tehre , for eternity .
i have seen 5 dollar bins at the music store , and its full of the batman soundtrack , nat king cole sings jingle bells , and other assorted novelties .
perhaps they could take a pricing lesson from the movie industry .
you know , lower the price .
if the amount of sales measure into someone being in the top 40 , wouldnt it be a good idea to let th e masses buy thier album instead of watching your profits slouch ? if i owned a company that sold Gizmo .
and the price of the Gizmo stayed basically the same for 30-40 years , accounting inflation n all .
then suddenly people found they could get Gizmo for FREE !
at my expence .
i wouldnt blame them .
however the version thier getting is a much less sound quality .
so i only have to look at what i have , a better product with better quality .
maybe if i lowered my price people would buy Gizmo again , and not get it for free .
cuase its something bout the item in hand that makes oine feel that tehy own it .
i know , id lower the price !
maybe afters its been out a while id let it for for only a few dollars .
i dont see the need of charging 17 dollars for a 40 year old gizmo when a new one is 17 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when a movie comes out, its around 20-25 dollarrs.
after 2 or 3 weeks, 5 dollars is knocked off the price.
a few months later, another 5...and soon is in the 5 dollar bin, and not even 2 years old.mujsic comes out, brand new cd is 25 bucks (even after the govt told the industry to lower the price, and they promiced tehy would, 25 years ago), and after 6 motn hs or so, the price becomes 16.99.  and stays tehre, for eternity.
i have seen 5 dollar bins at the music store, and its full of the batman soundtrack, nat king cole sings jingle bells, and other assorted novelties.
perhaps they could take a pricing lesson from the movie industry.
you know, lower the price.
if the amount of sales measure into someone being in the top 40, wouldnt it be a good idea to let th e masses buy thier album instead of watching your profits slouch?if i owned a company that sold Gizmo.
and the price of the Gizmo stayed basically the same for 30-40 years, accounting inflation n all.
then suddenly people found they could get Gizmo for FREE!
at my expence.
i wouldnt blame them.
however the version thier getting is a much less sound quality.
so i only have to look at what i have, a better product with better quality.
maybe if i lowered my price people would buy Gizmo again, and not get it for free.
cuase its something bout the item in hand that makes oine feel that tehy own it.
i know, id lower the price!
maybe afters its been out a while id let it for for only a few dollars.
i dont see the need of charging 17 dollars for a 40 year old gizmo when a new one is 17.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324370</id>
	<title>Re:I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And people who do that are generally pretty bad parents, I might add. I'm not completely anti-media for our sprog, but media-viewing needs to be something they then communicate about, that they do intelligently, etc. I understand the need to occasionally placate a rampaging toddler with singing sparkly, but I'm convinced that it's gone much too far in the last couple decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And people who do that are generally pretty bad parents , I might add .
I 'm not completely anti-media for our sprog , but media-viewing needs to be something they then communicate about , that they do intelligently , etc .
I understand the need to occasionally placate a rampaging toddler with singing sparkly , but I 'm convinced that it 's gone much too far in the last couple decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people who do that are generally pretty bad parents, I might add.
I'm not completely anti-media for our sprog, but media-viewing needs to be something they then communicate about, that they do intelligently, etc.
I understand the need to occasionally placate a rampaging toddler with singing sparkly, but I'm convinced that it's gone much too far in the last couple decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325002</id>
	<title>Re:Disaggregation</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1259948160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes, the Stephen Colbert mentality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the Stephen Colbert mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the Stephen Colbert mentality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324778</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1259947200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <i>was</i> talking about generic action/horror and pop music. Certainly there are exceptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was talking about generic action/horror and pop music .
Certainly there are exceptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was talking about generic action/horror and pop music.
Certainly there are exceptions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329572</id>
	<title>Re:Another huge difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259924400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, about a THOUSAND times more expensive (per minute) than that: $90,000,000 / 137min = $656934.31/min</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , about a THOUSAND times more expensive ( per minute ) than that : $ 90,000,000 / 137min = $ 656934.31/min</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, about a THOUSAND times more expensive (per minute) than that: $90,000,000 / 137min = $656934.31/min</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784</id>
	<title>Disaggregation</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1259942580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" -- unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.</p></div><p>I stopped watching movies a few years ago, now all I watch are the trailers.  They are free,  you get 80\% of the story, and it is always the best parts too.  What's not to love?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies are n't amenable to " disaggregation " -- unlike CDs , which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.I stopped watching movies a few years ago , now all I watch are the trailers .
They are free , you get 80 \ % of the story , and it is always the best parts too .
What 's not to love ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the most important difference from the music business is that movies aren't amenable to "disaggregation" -- unlike CDs, which people stopped buying once they could get the individual songs they really wanted.I stopped watching movies a few years ago, now all I watch are the trailers.
They are free,  you get 80\% of the story, and it is always the best parts too.
What's not to love?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324314</id>
	<title>Other ways movies are different</title>
	<author>wiwa</author>
	<datestamp>1259945160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can download an album in less time than it takes to listen to it. I can barely tell the difference between the downloaded version and what I would buy at a record store. And it's already in the format I want, either for listening to it on the computer or putting it on my iPhone.</p><p>A movie, on the other hand, I'm probably going to have to leave to download overnight. It still won't be quite as good quality as the DVD version, and it will certainly be inferior to the BluRay version. If I want to watch it on my TV, I have to go to the hassle of burning it to a DVD. (If I want to watch it on my iPhone, I have to go to the even greater hassle of transcoding it.) It's probably easier to just walk to the video store around the corner and shell out the $4 to get 3 movies right away.</p><p>What's more, that 200 MB album I downloaded is probably going to get listened to dozens of times. The 2 GB movie might get watched twice if it's REALLY good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can download an album in less time than it takes to listen to it .
I can barely tell the difference between the downloaded version and what I would buy at a record store .
And it 's already in the format I want , either for listening to it on the computer or putting it on my iPhone.A movie , on the other hand , I 'm probably going to have to leave to download overnight .
It still wo n't be quite as good quality as the DVD version , and it will certainly be inferior to the BluRay version .
If I want to watch it on my TV , I have to go to the hassle of burning it to a DVD .
( If I want to watch it on my iPhone , I have to go to the even greater hassle of transcoding it .
) It 's probably easier to just walk to the video store around the corner and shell out the $ 4 to get 3 movies right away.What 's more , that 200 MB album I downloaded is probably going to get listened to dozens of times .
The 2 GB movie might get watched twice if it 's REALLY good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can download an album in less time than it takes to listen to it.
I can barely tell the difference between the downloaded version and what I would buy at a record store.
And it's already in the format I want, either for listening to it on the computer or putting it on my iPhone.A movie, on the other hand, I'm probably going to have to leave to download overnight.
It still won't be quite as good quality as the DVD version, and it will certainly be inferior to the BluRay version.
If I want to watch it on my TV, I have to go to the hassle of burning it to a DVD.
(If I want to watch it on my iPhone, I have to go to the even greater hassle of transcoding it.
) It's probably easier to just walk to the video store around the corner and shell out the $4 to get 3 movies right away.What's more, that 200 MB album I downloaded is probably going to get listened to dozens of times.
The 2 GB movie might get watched twice if it's REALLY good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324758</id>
	<title>Not all CD sales should be on the decline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are talking pop/rock then digital mp3 downloads are killing off CD's since most people would rather buy a single tune than an entire album in most cases.  Of course there ARE albums that are worth owning such as ANYTHING by the Beatles, the Who's Tommy, etc.  OTOH sales of classical music CD's shouldn't be down as much since here we are talking about music of longer lengths where only 1 - 3 selections fill an entire CD.  Also people who listen to classical music are less likely to be happy with the quality of MP3's lossy compression and want the real thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are talking pop/rock then digital mp3 downloads are killing off CD 's since most people would rather buy a single tune than an entire album in most cases .
Of course there ARE albums that are worth owning such as ANYTHING by the Beatles , the Who 's Tommy , etc .
OTOH sales of classical music CD 's should n't be down as much since here we are talking about music of longer lengths where only 1 - 3 selections fill an entire CD .
Also people who listen to classical music are less likely to be happy with the quality of MP3 's lossy compression and want the real thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are talking pop/rock then digital mp3 downloads are killing off CD's since most people would rather buy a single tune than an entire album in most cases.
Of course there ARE albums that are worth owning such as ANYTHING by the Beatles, the Who's Tommy, etc.
OTOH sales of classical music CD's shouldn't be down as much since here we are talking about music of longer lengths where only 1 - 3 selections fill an entire CD.
Also people who listen to classical music are less likely to be happy with the quality of MP3's lossy compression and want the real thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30332860</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1259950980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums. The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.</p><p>So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even. I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD. I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, it would seem to me that part of the problem in that expense equation is that you don't need to hire oscar winning actors to portray drunken frat boys.  I mean, honestly, did "The Hangover" require the acting talents of whoever was in it?  Were their performances really worth what they were paid for them?  I think "Jackass" pretty much proved that you don't need high paid actors for "quality" entertainment; most people will be satisfied with actual frat boys kicking each other in the balls (which they will do for enough beer (which is considerably cheaper than actors' salaries)).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums .
The money goes to paying actors , and lighting guys , and directors , and writers , and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.So I 'm really not certain you 'd wind up making enough money to break even .
I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days , most people would be content with a VCD or DVD .
I do n't think you 'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.Well , it would seem to me that part of the problem in that expense equation is that you do n't need to hire oscar winning actors to portray drunken frat boys .
I mean , honestly , did " The Hangover " require the acting talents of whoever was in it ?
Were their performances really worth what they were paid for them ?
I think " Jackass " pretty much proved that you do n't need high paid actors for " quality " entertainment ; most people will be satisfied with actual frat boys kicking each other in the balls ( which they will do for enough beer ( which is considerably cheaper than actors ' salaries ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But it seems to me that most of the money goes into producing the film itself - not duplicating it in various mediums.
The money goes to paying actors, and lighting guys, and directors, and writers, and whoever else... Not to buying blank discs and celluloid.So I'm really not certain you'd wind up making enough money to break even.
I really think that with most of the crap coming out of Hollywood these days, most people would be content with a VCD or DVD.
I don't think you'd really see all that many people showing up in the theater or buying the boxed set.Well, it would seem to me that part of the problem in that expense equation is that you don't need to hire oscar winning actors to portray drunken frat boys.
I mean, honestly, did "The Hangover" require the acting talents of whoever was in it?
Were their performances really worth what they were paid for them?
I think "Jackass" pretty much proved that you don't need high paid actors for "quality" entertainment; most people will be satisfied with actual frat boys kicking each other in the balls (which they will do for enough beer (which is considerably cheaper than actors' salaries)).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848</id>
	<title>New physical music media?</title>
	<author>Mr. DOS</author>
	<datestamp>1259942880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format. Why? It's not like the so-called "musicians" of today want to make longer records (for which more storage would be necessary), and it's not like consumers want higher-quality audio, either - it's been repeatedly (although I wouldn't say conclusively) shown that most consumers can hear no problems with 128Kbps MP3's, and that they're perfectly happy with said bottom-of-the-barrel quality. CD's aren't great, but it's not as anybody's starving for something better (as opposed to video, where people seem to want constantly higher and higher resolution). Also - and I hate to say this, but - it seems as if the music industry is starting to "get" digital distribution which further negates the need for a new format (as opposed to the movie industry, who still totally less-than-three's physical distribution).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format .
Why ? It 's not like the so-called " musicians " of today want to make longer records ( for which more storage would be necessary ) , and it 's not like consumers want higher-quality audio , either - it 's been repeatedly ( although I would n't say conclusively ) shown that most consumers can hear no problems with 128Kbps MP3 's , and that they 're perfectly happy with said bottom-of-the-barrel quality .
CD 's are n't great , but it 's not as anybody 's starving for something better ( as opposed to video , where people seem to want constantly higher and higher resolution ) .
Also - and I hate to say this , but - it seems as if the music industry is starting to " get " digital distribution which further negates the need for a new format ( as opposed to the movie industry , who still totally less-than-three 's physical distribution ) .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format.
Why? It's not like the so-called "musicians" of today want to make longer records (for which more storage would be necessary), and it's not like consumers want higher-quality audio, either - it's been repeatedly (although I wouldn't say conclusively) shown that most consumers can hear no problems with 128Kbps MP3's, and that they're perfectly happy with said bottom-of-the-barrel quality.
CD's aren't great, but it's not as anybody's starving for something better (as opposed to video, where people seem to want constantly higher and higher resolution).
Also - and I hate to say this, but - it seems as if the music industry is starting to "get" digital distribution which further negates the need for a new format (as opposed to the movie industry, who still totally less-than-three's physical distribution).
      --- Mr. DOS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326468</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1259954220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Responding not so much to TFA itself as much as the title, movies and music are CONSUMED in totally different ways too. Music can be on in the background at home, work, or in a car, and individual songs are only a few minutes long. A movie is much more of a "OK I'm going to sit still and do this for a couple hours" type of experience--totally different.</p><p>Yes, you can have a movie on in the background while working, but you won't really <em>enjoy</em> it as much as you would otherwise, and that affects its value to you. If you're working at home tonight, with HBO on in the background, and <em>Terminator 2</em> comes on, will you leave it on? Sure. Does that you'd also be willing to stop at the video store and rent it or buy it just so you can have it on in the background? No way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Responding not so much to TFA itself as much as the title , movies and music are CONSUMED in totally different ways too .
Music can be on in the background at home , work , or in a car , and individual songs are only a few minutes long .
A movie is much more of a " OK I 'm going to sit still and do this for a couple hours " type of experience--totally different.Yes , you can have a movie on in the background while working , but you wo n't really enjoy it as much as you would otherwise , and that affects its value to you .
If you 're working at home tonight , with HBO on in the background , and Terminator 2 comes on , will you leave it on ?
Sure. Does that you 'd also be willing to stop at the video store and rent it or buy it just so you can have it on in the background ?
No way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Responding not so much to TFA itself as much as the title, movies and music are CONSUMED in totally different ways too.
Music can be on in the background at home, work, or in a car, and individual songs are only a few minutes long.
A movie is much more of a "OK I'm going to sit still and do this for a couple hours" type of experience--totally different.Yes, you can have a movie on in the background while working, but you won't really enjoy it as much as you would otherwise, and that affects its value to you.
If you're working at home tonight, with HBO on in the background, and Terminator 2 comes on, will you leave it on?
Sure. Does that you'd also be willing to stop at the video store and rent it or buy it just so you can have it on in the background?
No way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774</id>
	<title>Gaming,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259942520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they get into the fact the people are wasting there time and entertainment budgets on gaming?<br>
Can't go see a movie when you are busy playing CoD:MW2 or Tekken 6 or etc.<br>
Also at 60$ a Crack you might be hurting for expendable cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they get into the fact the people are wasting there time and entertainment budgets on gaming ?
Ca n't go see a movie when you are busy playing CoD : MW2 or Tekken 6 or etc .
Also at 60 $ a Crack you might be hurting for expendable cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they get into the fact the people are wasting there time and entertainment budgets on gaming?
Can't go see a movie when you are busy playing CoD:MW2 or Tekken 6 or etc.
Also at 60$ a Crack you might be hurting for expendable cash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324916</id>
	<title>DVD-Audio, SACD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259947800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I think these failed because (1) you had to buy new equipment, and (2) you could not play them on your computer.</p><p>This latter changed, sort of, when "hybrid" SACDs came out which had the regular CD audio on one layer, and the SACD on another. With DVD-A, the initial batch of DVD video players couldn't play them at all, and the industry stopped releasing them for a while when CSS was broken.</p><p>In general, the producers of these formats went after the niche audiophile market, and so were never able to really gain mainstream acceptance. If SACD had gone 'hybrid' from the very beginning, so that every CD sold was actually also an SACD, then more player (including ones in computers) would have been created (bringing down manufacturing costs). As it stands on people who read <em>Stereophile</em> are likely to have a player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I think these failed because ( 1 ) you had to buy new equipment , and ( 2 ) you could not play them on your computer.This latter changed , sort of , when " hybrid " SACDs came out which had the regular CD audio on one layer , and the SACD on another .
With DVD-A , the initial batch of DVD video players could n't play them at all , and the industry stopped releasing them for a while when CSS was broken.In general , the producers of these formats went after the niche audiophile market , and so were never able to really gain mainstream acceptance .
If SACD had gone 'hybrid ' from the very beginning , so that every CD sold was actually also an SACD , then more player ( including ones in computers ) would have been created ( bringing down manufacturing costs ) .
As it stands on people who read Stereophile are likely to have a player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I think these failed because (1) you had to buy new equipment, and (2) you could not play them on your computer.This latter changed, sort of, when "hybrid" SACDs came out which had the regular CD audio on one layer, and the SACD on another.
With DVD-A, the initial batch of DVD video players couldn't play them at all, and the industry stopped releasing them for a while when CSS was broken.In general, the producers of these formats went after the niche audiophile market, and so were never able to really gain mainstream acceptance.
If SACD had gone 'hybrid' from the very beginning, so that every CD sold was actually also an SACD, then more player (including ones in computers) would have been created (bringing down manufacturing costs).
As it stands on people who read Stereophile are likely to have a player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324304</id>
	<title>It's not just about the medium</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1259945160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The music industry has failed because they missed the "Why" there was disaggregation.  When they pump out huge masses of auto-tuned crap albums where there is only one song that is actually barely listenable, then there is no incentive to buy the whole album when you don't have to.  There are precious few artists out there that make an entire album a cohesive unit that resists breaking apart without lessening the individual pieces.</p><p>The music industries death spiral is really obvious these days.  I used to go to Borders to check new music in genre's other than top 40.  The music was more expensive than the other options I had available to me (the ma and pop music stores had been crushed by that point).  But now, the music selection is so small that in the blues and folk sections I've got significantly more selection at home than they have.  Now there are no brick and mortar stores to browse so I don't buy from brick and mortar stores.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The music industry has failed because they missed the " Why " there was disaggregation .
When they pump out huge masses of auto-tuned crap albums where there is only one song that is actually barely listenable , then there is no incentive to buy the whole album when you do n't have to .
There are precious few artists out there that make an entire album a cohesive unit that resists breaking apart without lessening the individual pieces.The music industries death spiral is really obvious these days .
I used to go to Borders to check new music in genre 's other than top 40 .
The music was more expensive than the other options I had available to me ( the ma and pop music stores had been crushed by that point ) .
But now , the music selection is so small that in the blues and folk sections I 've got significantly more selection at home than they have .
Now there are no brick and mortar stores to browse so I do n't buy from brick and mortar stores.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The music industry has failed because they missed the "Why" there was disaggregation.
When they pump out huge masses of auto-tuned crap albums where there is only one song that is actually barely listenable, then there is no incentive to buy the whole album when you don't have to.
There are precious few artists out there that make an entire album a cohesive unit that resists breaking apart without lessening the individual pieces.The music industries death spiral is really obvious these days.
I used to go to Borders to check new music in genre's other than top 40.
The music was more expensive than the other options I had available to me (the ma and pop music stores had been crushed by that point).
But now, the music selection is so small that in the blues and folk sections I've got significantly more selection at home than they have.
Now there are no brick and mortar stores to browse so I don't buy from brick and mortar stores.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324390</id>
	<title>Re:PSN's video store</title>
	<author>mblase</author>
	<datestamp>1259945580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, with proper 3D movies coming into play, I'm quite willing to still go to the cinema, sure I find the price quite high but if you haven't seen a 3D film yet I urge you to go and see one, it's very rare that I'm impressed with technology but this is something else.</p></div><p>Disclaimer: chose your directors carefully. Disney/Pixar has been relatively subdued with the 3D so far, only really pushing it when it adds punch to their animated action scenes. Anything by Zemekis uses 3D to excess in every other scene, and it made my eyes hurt badly to watch "Beowulf" that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , with proper 3D movies coming into play , I 'm quite willing to still go to the cinema , sure I find the price quite high but if you have n't seen a 3D film yet I urge you to go and see one , it 's very rare that I 'm impressed with technology but this is something else.Disclaimer : chose your directors carefully .
Disney/Pixar has been relatively subdued with the 3D so far , only really pushing it when it adds punch to their animated action scenes .
Anything by Zemekis uses 3D to excess in every other scene , and it made my eyes hurt badly to watch " Beowulf " that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, with proper 3D movies coming into play, I'm quite willing to still go to the cinema, sure I find the price quite high but if you haven't seen a 3D film yet I urge you to go and see one, it's very rare that I'm impressed with technology but this is something else.Disclaimer: chose your directors carefully.
Disney/Pixar has been relatively subdued with the 3D so far, only really pushing it when it adds punch to their animated action scenes.
Anything by Zemekis uses 3D to excess in every other scene, and it made my eyes hurt badly to watch "Beowulf" that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323914</id>
	<title>I can only hope</title>
	<author>TimeElf1</author>
	<datestamp>1259943240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can only hope that the movie industry reads the history books, for those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Although, I can see a new market opening up, sort of a YouTube for full length movies. I wonder if this is the end of the golden age for Hollywood, I can't see movie producers willing to pay actors millions to act in their movies if their profit margins are falling off the page. I wonder if Bollywood will step in to fill in the gap? I really don't like musicals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can only hope that the movie industry reads the history books , for those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it .
Although , I can see a new market opening up , sort of a YouTube for full length movies .
I wonder if this is the end of the golden age for Hollywood , I ca n't see movie producers willing to pay actors millions to act in their movies if their profit margins are falling off the page .
I wonder if Bollywood will step in to fill in the gap ?
I really do n't like musicals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can only hope that the movie industry reads the history books, for those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Although, I can see a new market opening up, sort of a YouTube for full length movies.
I wonder if this is the end of the golden age for Hollywood, I can't see movie producers willing to pay actors millions to act in their movies if their profit margins are falling off the page.
I wonder if Bollywood will step in to fill in the gap?
I really don't like musicals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328428</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>could it be...</p><p>that you're BOTH RIGHT?</p></div><p>Or that they were both wrong.  They cannot be both right, since both of them explicitly excluded the values of the other.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>could it be...that you 're BOTH RIGHT ? Or that they were both wrong .
They can not be both right , since both of them explicitly excluded the values of the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could it be...that you're BOTH RIGHT?Or that they were both wrong.
They cannot be both right, since both of them explicitly excluded the values of the other.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324860</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>Zalbik</author>
	<datestamp>1259947500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. Forget chasing 'pirates'. This will save a lot of expensive legal bills. Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.<br>2. Make film (Citizen Kane2, The Reckoning: starring Adam Sandler or something).<br>3. Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd's. Using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies. Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.<br>4. Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...wait a few weeks<br>5. Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and, again, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.<br>6. Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... wait some more<br>7. Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm<br>8. Dvd/Bluray boxed sets with extra everything.<br>9. Laugh all the way to the bank (which then gambles half your money away and pays the other half to its CEO).</p></div></blockquote><p>While I agree with the sentiment of what you posted, I'm guessing it's mostly guesswork.</p><p>The movie studios have a nearly unprecedented market research opportunity with the proliferation of pirates...but are letting it go to waste.</p><p>Here's my opinion on what needs to be done:</p><p>1) Track (or even release some of your own) pirated movies.  Figure out what is most popular...what is <i>really</i> impacting your business: The theater cammed versions, the leaked academy awards preview DVDs, the DVD rips that come out when the DVD is released, etc.</p><p>2) Start offering competition to the items that have the most impact.  Offer multiple price structures/multiple qualities.   Figure out the price point at which you can make the most profit from downloaders.</p><p>3) Stop treating these people like criminals and treat them like potential <i>customers</i>.  If the problem is as bad as the MPAA indicates, then there is a huge potential for growth here.</p><p>The movie studios keep wanting to put the genie back in the bottle.  It can't be done.  Apple has already shown that at a certain price point people <i>will</i> pay for downloadable content, even when a free alternative exists.</p><p>The big problem however, is I personally believe the pirate "problem" isn't nearly as bad as the MPAA makes it out to be.  They don't offer a competing product because they know there aren't really that many potential customers out there.  They just want to keep the public scared so pirating doesn't go mainstream...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Forget chasing 'pirates' .
This will save a lot of expensive legal bills .
Cut back drastically on advertising too , as you do n't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.2 .
Make film ( Citizen Kane2 , The Reckoning : starring Adam Sandler or something ) .3 .
Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd 's .
Using the economies of scale , sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies .
Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.4 .
Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd .
...wait a few weeks5 .
Make a nicer , longer dvd cut of the film and , again , sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.6 .
Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price .
.... wait some more7 .
Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm8 .
Dvd/Bluray boxed sets with extra everything.9 .
Laugh all the way to the bank ( which then gambles half your money away and pays the other half to its CEO ) .While I agree with the sentiment of what you posted , I 'm guessing it 's mostly guesswork.The movie studios have a nearly unprecedented market research opportunity with the proliferation of pirates...but are letting it go to waste.Here 's my opinion on what needs to be done : 1 ) Track ( or even release some of your own ) pirated movies .
Figure out what is most popular...what is really impacting your business : The theater cammed versions , the leaked academy awards preview DVDs , the DVD rips that come out when the DVD is released , etc.2 ) Start offering competition to the items that have the most impact .
Offer multiple price structures/multiple qualities .
Figure out the price point at which you can make the most profit from downloaders.3 ) Stop treating these people like criminals and treat them like potential customers .
If the problem is as bad as the MPAA indicates , then there is a huge potential for growth here.The movie studios keep wanting to put the genie back in the bottle .
It ca n't be done .
Apple has already shown that at a certain price point people will pay for downloadable content , even when a free alternative exists.The big problem however , is I personally believe the pirate " problem " is n't nearly as bad as the MPAA makes it out to be .
They do n't offer a competing product because they know there are n't really that many potential customers out there .
They just want to keep the public scared so pirating does n't go mainstream.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Forget chasing 'pirates'.
This will save a lot of expensive legal bills.
Cut back drastically on advertising too, as you don't need to whip people up into a frenzy to get them to theatres in the first week.2.
Make film (Citizen Kane2, The Reckoning: starring Adam Sandler or something).3.
Make a VCD cut and make unlabelled cheapo vcd's.
Using the economies of scale, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate vcd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.
Your margin is the difference between a bulk pressed cd and a small scale burned copy.4.
Simultaneously sell the film as a download for the same price as you get for the vcd.
...wait a few weeks5.
Make a nicer, longer dvd cut of the film and, again, sell these so cheap that the guys selling pirate dvd will buy from you rather than burn their own copies.6.
Sell the dvd cut of the film online at the same price as the DVD wholesale price.
.... wait some more7.
Theatre release of film in lovely THX/35mm8.
Dvd/Bluray boxed sets with extra everything.9.
Laugh all the way to the bank (which then gambles half your money away and pays the other half to its CEO).While I agree with the sentiment of what you posted, I'm guessing it's mostly guesswork.The movie studios have a nearly unprecedented market research opportunity with the proliferation of pirates...but are letting it go to waste.Here's my opinion on what needs to be done:1) Track (or even release some of your own) pirated movies.
Figure out what is most popular...what is really impacting your business: The theater cammed versions, the leaked academy awards preview DVDs, the DVD rips that come out when the DVD is released, etc.2) Start offering competition to the items that have the most impact.
Offer multiple price structures/multiple qualities.
Figure out the price point at which you can make the most profit from downloaders.3) Stop treating these people like criminals and treat them like potential customers.
If the problem is as bad as the MPAA indicates, then there is a huge potential for growth here.The movie studios keep wanting to put the genie back in the bottle.
It can't be done.
Apple has already shown that at a certain price point people will pay for downloadable content, even when a free alternative exists.The big problem however, is I personally believe the pirate "problem" isn't nearly as bad as the MPAA makes it out to be.
They don't offer a competing product because they know there aren't really that many potential customers out there.
They just want to keep the public scared so pirating doesn't go mainstream...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324420</id>
	<title>Re:Duh!</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259945700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A song or album can be credibly done by an INDIVIDUAL</p></div><p>There are a couple problems with writing, recording, and self-publishing your own album:
</p><ul> <li>How do you promote it? The major labels have a lock on MTV, FM radio, and XM radio, the traditional ways to discover popular music.</li><li>How do you distribute it to people who don't have high-speed Internet access? The major labels have a lock on Walmart* and Best Buy, and some genres (such as country music) would appear to be more popular among people who live in areas where dial-up is the fastest (miles from the closest DSLAM, and no cable TV available).</li><li>How do you plan to avoid or defend copyright lawsuits in case part of your song happens to coincidentally match the hook of a song that was played on the radio? Compare <i>Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music</i>.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A song or album can be credibly done by an INDIVIDUALThere are a couple problems with writing , recording , and self-publishing your own album : How do you promote it ?
The major labels have a lock on MTV , FM radio , and XM radio , the traditional ways to discover popular music.How do you distribute it to people who do n't have high-speed Internet access ?
The major labels have a lock on Walmart * and Best Buy , and some genres ( such as country music ) would appear to be more popular among people who live in areas where dial-up is the fastest ( miles from the closest DSLAM , and no cable TV available ) .How do you plan to avoid or defend copyright lawsuits in case part of your song happens to coincidentally match the hook of a song that was played on the radio ?
Compare Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A song or album can be credibly done by an INDIVIDUALThere are a couple problems with writing, recording, and self-publishing your own album:
 How do you promote it?
The major labels have a lock on MTV, FM radio, and XM radio, the traditional ways to discover popular music.How do you distribute it to people who don't have high-speed Internet access?
The major labels have a lock on Walmart* and Best Buy, and some genres (such as country music) would appear to be more popular among people who live in areas where dial-up is the fastest (miles from the closest DSLAM, and no cable TV available).How do you plan to avoid or defend copyright lawsuits in case part of your song happens to coincidentally match the hook of a song that was played on the radio?
Compare Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324258</id>
	<title>slotMusic</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259944920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format.</p></div><p>You mean something other than <a href="http://www.slotmusic.org/what\_is.php" title="slotmusic.org">a load of MP3s on a microSD card</a> [slotmusic.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format.You mean something other than a load of MP3s on a microSD card [ slotmusic.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary seems to suggest that audio needs a new physical format.You mean something other than a load of MP3s on a microSD card [slotmusic.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972</id>
	<title>Re:DVD Sales Gap</title>
	<author>bbbaldie</author>
	<datestamp>1259943540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Five bucks is what I pay for a flick. No more. When it hits the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart, that's when I may or may not buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Five bucks is what I pay for a flick .
No more .
When it hits the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart , that 's when I may or may not buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Five bucks is what I pay for a flick.
No more.
When it hits the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart, that's when I may or may not buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324592</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>could it be...</p><p>that you're BOTH RIGHT?</p><p>ie, you've just demonstrated that each person has their own take on what form of entertainment works for them and makes them happy.</p><p>there IS no one-stop style that fits all.</p><p>some movies: watch once.  others, watch many<br>some songs: listen once.  others, listen many</p><p>people are different.  wow.  what a revelation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>could it be...that you 're BOTH RIGHT ? ie , you 've just demonstrated that each person has their own take on what form of entertainment works for them and makes them happy.there IS no one-stop style that fits all.some movies : watch once .
others , watch manysome songs : listen once .
others , listen manypeople are different .
wow. what a revelation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could it be...that you're BOTH RIGHT?ie, you've just demonstrated that each person has their own take on what form of entertainment works for them and makes them happy.there IS no one-stop style that fits all.some movies: watch once.
others, watch manysome songs: listen once.
others, listen manypeople are different.
wow.  what a revelation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324410</id>
	<title>Movies and Concerts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259945640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hollywood will be fine because movies are similar to concerts.  People ENJOY going to the theater and watching a movie on the big screen (at least I and all of my friends and family do).  Especially large scale action movies.  The Matrix, Transformers, The Dark Night, and Apollo 13 were all AWESOME on a huge screen.  That's an experience that a person can't get at home, same as with concerts.  Those kinds of experiences will always be in demand.</p><p>That's the big difference between Hollywood and the big music developers.  The RIAA does not sell experiences, and Hollywood does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hollywood will be fine because movies are similar to concerts .
People ENJOY going to the theater and watching a movie on the big screen ( at least I and all of my friends and family do ) .
Especially large scale action movies .
The Matrix , Transformers , The Dark Night , and Apollo 13 were all AWESOME on a huge screen .
That 's an experience that a person ca n't get at home , same as with concerts .
Those kinds of experiences will always be in demand.That 's the big difference between Hollywood and the big music developers .
The RIAA does not sell experiences , and Hollywood does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hollywood will be fine because movies are similar to concerts.
People ENJOY going to the theater and watching a movie on the big screen (at least I and all of my friends and family do).
Especially large scale action movies.
The Matrix, Transformers, The Dark Night, and Apollo 13 were all AWESOME on a huge screen.
That's an experience that a person can't get at home, same as with concerts.
Those kinds of experiences will always be in demand.That's the big difference between Hollywood and the big music developers.
The RIAA does not sell experiences, and Hollywood does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324200</id>
	<title>Hollywood Gotterdamerung</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1259944620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the Music and News industries and countless other dead industries and even dinosaurs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,governments and religions before, the movie industry is not making the concessions necessary for its survival and is taking no pointers from the failures of others. Rationalizing to appease whatever future you wish for, rather than viewing the lessons of history makes for a pretty pathetic read. Wishing the best for todays failing industries is kind of like crapping in one hand and wishing in the other. Which hand will fill with tangible results first?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We should welcome the change as it will lead to better things. Where there is demand there will be product to fill it. I just may not be the same product enjoyed by our ancestors. Is it really sad that we don't ride horses everywhere anymore? Is it problematic that television displaced radio? Should we cry for the absence of player pianos? Digging farther back, it's no longer popular to light pine trees afire to let the tribe watch the pretty colors of the burn.</p><p>Truthfully most people are tired of watching the same crap recycled over and over, but still do  and will until presented with other kinds of content and diversion.<br>Both our hands are filled with recycled crap. Time for change.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the Music and News industries and countless other dead industries and even dinosaurs ,governments and religions before , the movie industry is not making the concessions necessary for its survival and is taking no pointers from the failures of others .
Rationalizing to appease whatever future you wish for , rather than viewing the lessons of history makes for a pretty pathetic read .
Wishing the best for todays failing industries is kind of like crapping in one hand and wishing in the other .
Which hand will fill with tangible results first ?
            We should welcome the change as it will lead to better things .
Where there is demand there will be product to fill it .
I just may not be the same product enjoyed by our ancestors .
Is it really sad that we do n't ride horses everywhere anymore ?
Is it problematic that television displaced radio ?
Should we cry for the absence of player pianos ?
Digging farther back , it 's no longer popular to light pine trees afire to let the tribe watch the pretty colors of the burn.Truthfully most people are tired of watching the same crap recycled over and over , but still do and will until presented with other kinds of content and diversion.Both our hands are filled with recycled crap .
Time for change .
         </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the Music and News industries and countless other dead industries and even dinosaurs ,governments and religions before, the movie industry is not making the concessions necessary for its survival and is taking no pointers from the failures of others.
Rationalizing to appease whatever future you wish for, rather than viewing the lessons of history makes for a pretty pathetic read.
Wishing the best for todays failing industries is kind of like crapping in one hand and wishing in the other.
Which hand will fill with tangible results first?
            We should welcome the change as it will lead to better things.
Where there is demand there will be product to fill it.
I just may not be the same product enjoyed by our ancestors.
Is it really sad that we don't ride horses everywhere anymore?
Is it problematic that television displaced radio?
Should we cry for the absence of player pianos?
Digging farther back, it's no longer popular to light pine trees afire to let the tribe watch the pretty colors of the burn.Truthfully most people are tired of watching the same crap recycled over and over, but still do  and will until presented with other kinds of content and diversion.Both our hands are filled with recycled crap.
Time for change.
         </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324500</id>
	<title>YoU Fail I7.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259946000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">ar5eholes at Walnut In addition,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>ar5eholes at Walnut In addition , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ar5eholes at Walnut In addition, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325390</id>
	<title>Re:said it before, am saying it again</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1259949600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The plan is to take all the sales 'lost' to piracy whilst maximising theatrical profits and cutting costs. I bet you could pay your lead actors less if they didn't have to schlep around the world pimping the film. Wasn't Jurassic Park the first film whose advertising budget equalled its production budget?<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plan is to take all the sales 'lost ' to piracy whilst maximising theatrical profits and cutting costs .
I bet you could pay your lead actors less if they did n't have to schlep around the world pimping the film .
Was n't Jurassic Park the first film whose advertising budget equalled its production budget ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plan is to take all the sales 'lost' to piracy whilst maximising theatrical profits and cutting costs.
I bet you could pay your lead actors less if they didn't have to schlep around the world pimping the film.
Wasn't Jurassic Park the first film whose advertising budget equalled its production budget?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324382</id>
	<title>technology and talent</title>
	<author>unclepedro</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are inherently musical. While people may be inherently storytellers, a movie isn't like storytelling in the same way that recorded music is about "playing music" (otherwise we'd be seeing Lake Wobegon XVII: Garrison Stands Up And Tells Another Story (This Time It's Personal)). The music industry formed because of a distribution problem that today is basically gone. Movie studios formed because of a talent and production resource issue that is still an issue today and will be as long as humans are involved.</p><p>Movies are also harder to make well, both from a talent perspective and a technological perspective. People can make records at home now that rival the best production available in studios, but that's not really true for movies. Even when the technology is there so that VFX made at home stand up to Lucasfilm, etc., there's still the problem that good movies require writing a good script, which (as a musician), I have to say is a lot harder than writing a song or an album. What's more, playing music is easier than acting, and as a result there are millions more great musicians than there are great actors.Most people are not inherently believable actors, and they don't practice acting in their spare time. And that's a multiplicative factor, since a great record can be recorded by one person, but how many times can you watch Castaway?</p><p>The business model and distribution for movies may have some tough times, but I think there will always be a market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are inherently musical .
While people may be inherently storytellers , a movie is n't like storytelling in the same way that recorded music is about " playing music " ( otherwise we 'd be seeing Lake Wobegon XVII : Garrison Stands Up And Tells Another Story ( This Time It 's Personal ) ) .
The music industry formed because of a distribution problem that today is basically gone .
Movie studios formed because of a talent and production resource issue that is still an issue today and will be as long as humans are involved.Movies are also harder to make well , both from a talent perspective and a technological perspective .
People can make records at home now that rival the best production available in studios , but that 's not really true for movies .
Even when the technology is there so that VFX made at home stand up to Lucasfilm , etc. , there 's still the problem that good movies require writing a good script , which ( as a musician ) , I have to say is a lot harder than writing a song or an album .
What 's more , playing music is easier than acting , and as a result there are millions more great musicians than there are great actors.Most people are not inherently believable actors , and they do n't practice acting in their spare time .
And that 's a multiplicative factor , since a great record can be recorded by one person , but how many times can you watch Castaway ? The business model and distribution for movies may have some tough times , but I think there will always be a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are inherently musical.
While people may be inherently storytellers, a movie isn't like storytelling in the same way that recorded music is about "playing music" (otherwise we'd be seeing Lake Wobegon XVII: Garrison Stands Up And Tells Another Story (This Time It's Personal)).
The music industry formed because of a distribution problem that today is basically gone.
Movie studios formed because of a talent and production resource issue that is still an issue today and will be as long as humans are involved.Movies are also harder to make well, both from a talent perspective and a technological perspective.
People can make records at home now that rival the best production available in studios, but that's not really true for movies.
Even when the technology is there so that VFX made at home stand up to Lucasfilm, etc., there's still the problem that good movies require writing a good script, which (as a musician), I have to say is a lot harder than writing a song or an album.
What's more, playing music is easier than acting, and as a result there are millions more great musicians than there are great actors.Most people are not inherently believable actors, and they don't practice acting in their spare time.
And that's a multiplicative factor, since a great record can be recorded by one person, but how many times can you watch Castaway?The business model and distribution for movies may have some tough times, but I think there will always be a market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329760</id>
	<title>Also, the majority of movies don't suck</title>
	<author>RexDevious</author>
	<datestamp>1259925240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "disaggregation" effect came about because record companies supported the "one song sells the record" model of A&amp;R development and marketing. Albums used to be works unto themselves by default. You listened to the whole thing not just because it you couldn't just get one track (45's sold just fine thank you very much), but because the record companies signed bands capable of producing a whole album of good songs, and gave them the support to do so. Now they still try to push that one catchy song on the whole album, and complain that their customers look for ways to avoid getting burnt by buying 9 filler songs to hear it. Boo freakin' hoo.</p><p>But without getting into the myriad of differences between today's movies and albums, from production to distribution, the parting of ways between the music and movie industries is primarily in the passion of the people running them. At the executive level, the people who make movies at least *care* about movies. As in, they actually enjoy watching them. The CEO's of record companies increasingly don't. Go into the offices of the presidents of major music companies and they look just like the offices they had when they ran their previous business, as in, there isn't a stereo anywhere in the room. When the President of Jive records or BMG goes home and does listen to music, it's usually classical - not the genre's they sell. Perhaps rap has done better than it might have because the President of Bad Boy Records at least consumes his own product.</p><p>The time and effort it takes to pirate a movie these days is no more than it was to pirate an album in the 24,000 baud Napster days. And if most movies consisted of one neat 3 minute scene you saw in the preview along with 97 minutes of garbage, all of which was targeted to 14 year olds, then pirating would probably be as big of a threat to movie studios as it was to music studios.</p><p>Since we're all techies here, it should also be pointed out that the original lossy MP3 format wouldn't have taken off in the first place if the majority of music was so good that the sound quality was a deal breaker. I might listen to a Taylor Swift song in a low bit rate, or watch Ernest Goes to Camp at 320x200 if it's free - but I'll buy the Dark Side of the Moon on CD, and Blade Runner on Blue Ray. They still try to make movies as good as the Blade Runner. Dark Side of the Moon? Not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " disaggregation " effect came about because record companies supported the " one song sells the record " model of A&amp;R development and marketing .
Albums used to be works unto themselves by default .
You listened to the whole thing not just because it you could n't just get one track ( 45 's sold just fine thank you very much ) , but because the record companies signed bands capable of producing a whole album of good songs , and gave them the support to do so .
Now they still try to push that one catchy song on the whole album , and complain that their customers look for ways to avoid getting burnt by buying 9 filler songs to hear it .
Boo freakin ' hoo.But without getting into the myriad of differences between today 's movies and albums , from production to distribution , the parting of ways between the music and movie industries is primarily in the passion of the people running them .
At the executive level , the people who make movies at least * care * about movies .
As in , they actually enjoy watching them .
The CEO 's of record companies increasingly do n't .
Go into the offices of the presidents of major music companies and they look just like the offices they had when they ran their previous business , as in , there is n't a stereo anywhere in the room .
When the President of Jive records or BMG goes home and does listen to music , it 's usually classical - not the genre 's they sell .
Perhaps rap has done better than it might have because the President of Bad Boy Records at least consumes his own product.The time and effort it takes to pirate a movie these days is no more than it was to pirate an album in the 24,000 baud Napster days .
And if most movies consisted of one neat 3 minute scene you saw in the preview along with 97 minutes of garbage , all of which was targeted to 14 year olds , then pirating would probably be as big of a threat to movie studios as it was to music studios.Since we 're all techies here , it should also be pointed out that the original lossy MP3 format would n't have taken off in the first place if the majority of music was so good that the sound quality was a deal breaker .
I might listen to a Taylor Swift song in a low bit rate , or watch Ernest Goes to Camp at 320x200 if it 's free - but I 'll buy the Dark Side of the Moon on CD , and Blade Runner on Blue Ray .
They still try to make movies as good as the Blade Runner .
Dark Side of the Moon ?
Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "disaggregation" effect came about because record companies supported the "one song sells the record" model of A&amp;R development and marketing.
Albums used to be works unto themselves by default.
You listened to the whole thing not just because it you couldn't just get one track (45's sold just fine thank you very much), but because the record companies signed bands capable of producing a whole album of good songs, and gave them the support to do so.
Now they still try to push that one catchy song on the whole album, and complain that their customers look for ways to avoid getting burnt by buying 9 filler songs to hear it.
Boo freakin' hoo.But without getting into the myriad of differences between today's movies and albums, from production to distribution, the parting of ways between the music and movie industries is primarily in the passion of the people running them.
At the executive level, the people who make movies at least *care* about movies.
As in, they actually enjoy watching them.
The CEO's of record companies increasingly don't.
Go into the offices of the presidents of major music companies and they look just like the offices they had when they ran their previous business, as in, there isn't a stereo anywhere in the room.
When the President of Jive records or BMG goes home and does listen to music, it's usually classical - not the genre's they sell.
Perhaps rap has done better than it might have because the President of Bad Boy Records at least consumes his own product.The time and effort it takes to pirate a movie these days is no more than it was to pirate an album in the 24,000 baud Napster days.
And if most movies consisted of one neat 3 minute scene you saw in the preview along with 97 minutes of garbage, all of which was targeted to 14 year olds, then pirating would probably be as big of a threat to movie studios as it was to music studios.Since we're all techies here, it should also be pointed out that the original lossy MP3 format wouldn't have taken off in the first place if the majority of music was so good that the sound quality was a deal breaker.
I might listen to a Taylor Swift song in a low bit rate, or watch Ernest Goes to Camp at 320x200 if it's free - but I'll buy the Dark Side of the Moon on CD, and Blade Runner on Blue Ray.
They still try to make movies as good as the Blade Runner.
Dark Side of the Moon?
Not so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324826</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious difference</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1259947320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is the relative proportion of movies that you&rsquo;ll re-watch vs. the proportion of songs that you&rsquo;ll listen to again.</p><p>The other difference is that most people listen to music virtually all the time, while doing other things that basically take all their attention. People don&rsquo;t do that with movies. TV perhaps, but not typically with movies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is the relative proportion of movies that you    ll re-watch vs. the proportion of songs that you    ll listen to again.The other difference is that most people listen to music virtually all the time , while doing other things that basically take all their attention .
People don    t do that with movies .
TV perhaps , but not typically with movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is the relative proportion of movies that you’ll re-watch vs. the proportion of songs that you’ll listen to again.The other difference is that most people listen to music virtually all the time, while doing other things that basically take all their attention.
People don’t do that with movies.
TV perhaps, but not typically with movies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328188</id>
	<title>Counter point:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259918280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Princess Bride</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Princess Bride</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Princess Bride</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30338546</id>
	<title>Re:New physical music media?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's amazing really. They spend scads of cash on top of the line specialist equipment to record everything "just so", pay scads more for an engineer with a golden ear to mix it down, pay someone else to crank all the knobs to 11 and ruin it all, then it gets squashed by lossy compression and played through the cheapest earbuds available.</p><p>Honestly, given those last three steps it could all be recorded on prosumer grade standard mikes, recorded by a PC with a good sound card, and mixed by a competent but not special engineer and nobody would hear the difference. Their primary market has no idea who the recording engineer was and doesn't care.</p><p>It's interesting that Classical music whose market will tend to actually be able to hear the difference between a vintage ribbon mike and whatever's on sale at Rat Shack and has more disposable income (on average), requires hiring an entire orchestra to record it, and can be spoiled by the least little mistake sells for about half as much as the latest pop princess who can't stay on-key without help from protools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing really .
They spend scads of cash on top of the line specialist equipment to record everything " just so " , pay scads more for an engineer with a golden ear to mix it down , pay someone else to crank all the knobs to 11 and ruin it all , then it gets squashed by lossy compression and played through the cheapest earbuds available.Honestly , given those last three steps it could all be recorded on prosumer grade standard mikes , recorded by a PC with a good sound card , and mixed by a competent but not special engineer and nobody would hear the difference .
Their primary market has no idea who the recording engineer was and does n't care.It 's interesting that Classical music whose market will tend to actually be able to hear the difference between a vintage ribbon mike and whatever 's on sale at Rat Shack and has more disposable income ( on average ) , requires hiring an entire orchestra to record it , and can be spoiled by the least little mistake sells for about half as much as the latest pop princess who ca n't stay on-key without help from protools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing really.
They spend scads of cash on top of the line specialist equipment to record everything "just so", pay scads more for an engineer with a golden ear to mix it down, pay someone else to crank all the knobs to 11 and ruin it all, then it gets squashed by lossy compression and played through the cheapest earbuds available.Honestly, given those last three steps it could all be recorded on prosumer grade standard mikes, recorded by a PC with a good sound card, and mixed by a competent but not special engineer and nobody would hear the difference.
Their primary market has no idea who the recording engineer was and doesn't care.It's interesting that Classical music whose market will tend to actually be able to hear the difference between a vintage ribbon mike and whatever's on sale at Rat Shack and has more disposable income (on average), requires hiring an entire orchestra to record it, and can be spoiled by the least little mistake sells for about half as much as the latest pop princess who can't stay on-key without help from protools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328378</id>
	<title>"not having a replacement" wasn't the problem...</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1259919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the problem with the music industry wasn't "not coming up with a new format", it was ignoring the replacement format which consumers decided to use. The movie industry did this for longer than the music industry, but it's still a problem. Blu-Ray should not exist, but the biggest publisher of all is also a hardware manufacturer.</p><p>Hardware manufacturers don't like it when someone comes up with something like say, a computer, which means you can come out with new improved formats which benefits everyone immediately, without the need to buy anything new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the problem with the music industry was n't " not coming up with a new format " , it was ignoring the replacement format which consumers decided to use .
The movie industry did this for longer than the music industry , but it 's still a problem .
Blu-Ray should not exist , but the biggest publisher of all is also a hardware manufacturer.Hardware manufacturers do n't like it when someone comes up with something like say , a computer , which means you can come out with new improved formats which benefits everyone immediately , without the need to buy anything new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the problem with the music industry wasn't "not coming up with a new format", it was ignoring the replacement format which consumers decided to use.
The movie industry did this for longer than the music industry, but it's still a problem.
Blu-Ray should not exist, but the biggest publisher of all is also a hardware manufacturer.Hardware manufacturers don't like it when someone comes up with something like say, a computer, which means you can come out with new improved formats which benefits everyone immediately, without the need to buy anything new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325816</id>
	<title>Re:DVD Sales Gap</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1259951460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It isn't new then so the value of the product has dropped...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't new then so the value of the product has dropped... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't new then so the value of the product has dropped...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324060</id>
	<title>Re:Gaming,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So I'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game, instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.</p></div><p>In which case you are potentially buying 1 movie instead of 2, thus halving the number of movies sold....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game , instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.In which case you are potentially buying 1 movie instead of 2 , thus halving the number of movies sold... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'd end up watching 1 move and buying 1 game, instead of buying 2 games or watching 2 movies.In which case you are potentially buying 1 movie instead of 2, thus halving the number of movies sold....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102</id>
	<title>I wanna watch Sin-duh-weh-wuh</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1259944140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.</p></div><p>
That might apply to PG-13 and R rated movies, but not to the Disney animated canon. People buy Disney DVDs[1] to use them as electronic babysitters for their single-digit-year-old children.
</p><p>
[1] I'm not talking about <i>Kill Bill</i> here.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once , and as soon as possible .
That might apply to PG-13 and R rated movies , but not to the Disney animated canon .
People buy Disney DVDs [ 1 ] to use them as electronic babysitters for their single-digit-year-old children .
[ 1 ] I 'm not talking about Kill Bill here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people are interested in seeing a movie exactly once, and as soon as possible.
That might apply to PG-13 and R rated movies, but not to the Disney animated canon.
People buy Disney DVDs[1] to use them as electronic babysitters for their single-digit-year-old children.
[1] I'm not talking about Kill Bill here.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30338380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30332860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30335404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30331538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30338546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_04_1443205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30338546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30332860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30330362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326916
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324542
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326074
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30335404
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324592
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324826
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30328752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30326468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30329572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30331538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30327632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_04_1443205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30323784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30325002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30338380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_04_1443205.30324178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
