<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_20_1521218</id>
	<title>NYTimes Confirms It Will Start Charging For Online News In 2011</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264003140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jmtpi writes <i>"The article is frustratingly vague, but the New York Times is confirming <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/17/2249220/NY-Times-To-Charge-For-Online-Content">earlier speculation</a> that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/media/21times.html">it will start charging online readers</a> who visit the site regularly. Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month. Most of the key details are not yet determined, but the system is scheduled to be deployed at the beginning of next year."</i>
The Times is planning on rolling its own pay system, and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics. How often do you readers typically hit articles at nytimes.com in a given month? We try to avoid linking to stories behind paywalls when possible, and if the Times chooses a low monthly limit, you'll probably see a lot fewer links to their site &mdash; which would be a shame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>jmtpi writes " The article is frustratingly vague , but the New York Times is confirming earlier speculation that it will start charging online readers who visit the site regularly .
Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month .
Most of the key details are not yet determined , but the system is scheduled to be deployed at the beginning of next year .
" The Times is planning on rolling its own pay system , and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics .
How often do you readers typically hit articles at nytimes.com in a given month ?
We try to avoid linking to stories behind paywalls when possible , and if the Times chooses a low monthly limit , you 'll probably see a lot fewer links to their site    which would be a shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jmtpi writes "The article is frustratingly vague, but the New York Times is confirming earlier speculation that it will start charging online readers who visit the site regularly.
Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month.
Most of the key details are not yet determined, but the system is scheduled to be deployed at the beginning of next year.
"
The Times is planning on rolling its own pay system, and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics.
How often do you readers typically hit articles at nytimes.com in a given month?
We try to avoid linking to stories behind paywalls when possible, and if the Times chooses a low monthly limit, you'll probably see a lot fewer links to their site — which would be a shame.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836114</id>
	<title>Re:Some people will pay, most won't</title>
	<author>OldEarthResident</author>
	<datestamp>1264019040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never understood why people apologise for reading news sources they don't agree with.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
<br>
I'm a liberal, but I still read the conservative news sources as well. That way I know what everyone is saying, not just those people I agree with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never understood why people apologise for reading news sources they do n't agree with .
: - ) I 'm a liberal , but I still read the conservative news sources as well .
That way I know what everyone is saying , not just those people I agree with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never understood why people apologise for reading news sources they don't agree with.
:-)

I'm a liberal, but I still read the conservative news sources as well.
That way I know what everyone is saying, not just those people I agree with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30837630</id>
	<title>the real issue</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1263982380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As far as I understand it, the real issue is that the newspapers think they're losing money because consumers are getting the product for free, and consumers are saying that the newspapers are losing money because there is no longer an overriding need for the product, in some cases going so far as to say that questionable journalism makes the product no more than a cheering section for a particular set of issues or for a particular political party.
</p><p>
If the former is true, then a subscription model could work if done properly.  If the latter is true, web subscriptions will not help and barring government intervention, the paper will sink.  It'll be entertaining either way.
</p><p>
If the NYT really wanted to enter the internet age, they'd dump their presses and distribution network and go internet only.  In the rare cases when the user still wanted a physical paper, they could most probably be generated locally by dedicated E size printers at lower cost than being trucked in from a remote press.  Or they'd pioneer electronic paper and make it work.  Or e-book readers.  Or all of the above.
</p><p>
I think there's several reasons why newspapers can not do this.  One (the primary I think) is that there is a huge inertia in print media that hasn't played out yet.  It's difficult for management of traditional newspapers to get their heads around a print-free business model, and many would (apparently) go under rather than go there.  They typically see this internet thing as an irritation that unfairly competes with their core business, and that news websites will only ever be, at best, a companion to the print version.  This clearly doesn't match reality and said papers deserve to go out of business.
</p><p>
Another reason is unions.  You don't just dump unionized printers and truck drivers en-masse and stay in business.  I see this as an insurmountable obstacle and the main reason why the newspapers will either fold or get nationalized.  There doesn't seem to be a third choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I understand it , the real issue is that the newspapers think they 're losing money because consumers are getting the product for free , and consumers are saying that the newspapers are losing money because there is no longer an overriding need for the product , in some cases going so far as to say that questionable journalism makes the product no more than a cheering section for a particular set of issues or for a particular political party .
If the former is true , then a subscription model could work if done properly .
If the latter is true , web subscriptions will not help and barring government intervention , the paper will sink .
It 'll be entertaining either way .
If the NYT really wanted to enter the internet age , they 'd dump their presses and distribution network and go internet only .
In the rare cases when the user still wanted a physical paper , they could most probably be generated locally by dedicated E size printers at lower cost than being trucked in from a remote press .
Or they 'd pioneer electronic paper and make it work .
Or e-book readers .
Or all of the above .
I think there 's several reasons why newspapers can not do this .
One ( the primary I think ) is that there is a huge inertia in print media that has n't played out yet .
It 's difficult for management of traditional newspapers to get their heads around a print-free business model , and many would ( apparently ) go under rather than go there .
They typically see this internet thing as an irritation that unfairly competes with their core business , and that news websites will only ever be , at best , a companion to the print version .
This clearly does n't match reality and said papers deserve to go out of business .
Another reason is unions .
You do n't just dump unionized printers and truck drivers en-masse and stay in business .
I see this as an insurmountable obstacle and the main reason why the newspapers will either fold or get nationalized .
There does n't seem to be a third choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As far as I understand it, the real issue is that the newspapers think they're losing money because consumers are getting the product for free, and consumers are saying that the newspapers are losing money because there is no longer an overriding need for the product, in some cases going so far as to say that questionable journalism makes the product no more than a cheering section for a particular set of issues or for a particular political party.
If the former is true, then a subscription model could work if done properly.
If the latter is true, web subscriptions will not help and barring government intervention, the paper will sink.
It'll be entertaining either way.
If the NYT really wanted to enter the internet age, they'd dump their presses and distribution network and go internet only.
In the rare cases when the user still wanted a physical paper, they could most probably be generated locally by dedicated E size printers at lower cost than being trucked in from a remote press.
Or they'd pioneer electronic paper and make it work.
Or e-book readers.
Or all of the above.
I think there's several reasons why newspapers can not do this.
One (the primary I think) is that there is a huge inertia in print media that hasn't played out yet.
It's difficult for management of traditional newspapers to get their heads around a print-free business model, and many would (apparently) go under rather than go there.
They typically see this internet thing as an irritation that unfairly competes with their core business, and that news websites will only ever be, at best, a companion to the print version.
This clearly doesn't match reality and said papers deserve to go out of business.
Another reason is unions.
You don't just dump unionized printers and truck drivers en-masse and stay in business.
I see this as an insurmountable obstacle and the main reason why the newspapers will either fold or get nationalized.
There doesn't seem to be a third choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833084</id>
	<title>an offer they can't refuse?</title>
	<author>squidfood</author>
	<datestamp>1264007580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> - which would be a shame.</p></div><p>Is this the slashdot mafia coming out?  "Nice article. Shame is something were to... <i>happen</i> to our link to it."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- which would be a shame.Is this the slashdot mafia coming out ?
" Nice article .
Shame is something were to... happen to our link to it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> - which would be a shame.Is this the slashdot mafia coming out?
"Nice article.
Shame is something were to... happen to our link to it.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834020</id>
	<title>This is doomed to failure</title>
	<author>Flentil</author>
	<datestamp>1264010880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's funny is how many people here are saying that this is a good move for NYT.  They'll probably get a few thousand subscribers, keep it going for a year or maybe two tops, then either backpedal to a free model to avoid going bankrupt, or just go bankrupt and ask for a bailout.  I don't see this being a success as even a remote possibility.  Not on the free internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny is how many people here are saying that this is a good move for NYT .
They 'll probably get a few thousand subscribers , keep it going for a year or maybe two tops , then either backpedal to a free model to avoid going bankrupt , or just go bankrupt and ask for a bailout .
I do n't see this being a success as even a remote possibility .
Not on the free internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny is how many people here are saying that this is a good move for NYT.
They'll probably get a few thousand subscribers, keep it going for a year or maybe two tops, then either backpedal to a free model to avoid going bankrupt, or just go bankrupt and ask for a bailout.
I don't see this being a success as even a remote possibility.
Not on the free internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835150</id>
	<title>Re:Key Details</title>
	<author>waitwonder</author>
	<datestamp>1264015440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month. Most of the key details are not yet determined</i> </p><p>Wait, is that key details in the ARTICLE?</p><p> <i>Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of (register to read more)</i> </p></div><p>Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of insanity. sourced from napster for news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month .
Most of the key details are not yet determined Wait , is that key details in the ARTICLE ?
Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of ( register to read more ) Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of insanity .
sourced from napster for news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month.
Most of the key details are not yet determined Wait, is that key details in the ARTICLE?
Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of (register to read more) Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of insanity.
sourced from napster for news.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836070</id>
	<title>Re:Why the WSJ Online is hurting their customers</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1264018920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know very few people who pay the WSJ on their own.  I did many years back when life was easier and I had time to read 4 papers a day.  Mostly, though, I think Murdoch is counting on subscribers to take the subscriptions and other costs of the WSJ as a cost of doing business, just like he assumes the viewers of Fox News will take the excessive commercials as the cost of getting the only accurate and unbiased news on television.
<p>
The NYT is often purchased as a personal subscription, so the dynamics are different.  This is why the NYT is currently free.  I think that most people only read a few articles a day, and I hope would not be affected by this change.  For those that read more, then, a subscription does make sense.  $50 a year rather than the WSJ $100 makes sense, or maybe a $75 a year version that goes out ad free.  But I think ads bring in more than some would like the public to think, and frankly ads play a vital role for driving commerce at the local level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know very few people who pay the WSJ on their own .
I did many years back when life was easier and I had time to read 4 papers a day .
Mostly , though , I think Murdoch is counting on subscribers to take the subscriptions and other costs of the WSJ as a cost of doing business , just like he assumes the viewers of Fox News will take the excessive commercials as the cost of getting the only accurate and unbiased news on television .
The NYT is often purchased as a personal subscription , so the dynamics are different .
This is why the NYT is currently free .
I think that most people only read a few articles a day , and I hope would not be affected by this change .
For those that read more , then , a subscription does make sense .
$ 50 a year rather than the WSJ $ 100 makes sense , or maybe a $ 75 a year version that goes out ad free .
But I think ads bring in more than some would like the public to think , and frankly ads play a vital role for driving commerce at the local level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know very few people who pay the WSJ on their own.
I did many years back when life was easier and I had time to read 4 papers a day.
Mostly, though, I think Murdoch is counting on subscribers to take the subscriptions and other costs of the WSJ as a cost of doing business, just like he assumes the viewers of Fox News will take the excessive commercials as the cost of getting the only accurate and unbiased news on television.
The NYT is often purchased as a personal subscription, so the dynamics are different.
This is why the NYT is currently free.
I think that most people only read a few articles a day, and I hope would not be affected by this change.
For those that read more, then, a subscription does make sense.
$50 a year rather than the WSJ $100 makes sense, or maybe a $75 a year version that goes out ad free.
But I think ads bring in more than some would like the public to think, and frankly ads play a vital role for driving commerce at the local level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834690</id>
	<title>All depends on the price</title>
	<author>stupendou</author>
	<datestamp>1264013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read probably 5-10 articles per day on the NYT website. While there are alternatives for free online news, none match the quality. I don't know if that makes me a power reader or not. I do know it would be a little painful to not have access to at least 2-3 articles per day.</p><p>For the 5-10 articles I'd be willing to pay something, but probably $10 per year, not per month. If they are intent on getting it "really, really right" then they need to start with the price. $49.95 / month, as the failed TimesSelect charged, is a non-starter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read probably 5-10 articles per day on the NYT website .
While there are alternatives for free online news , none match the quality .
I do n't know if that makes me a power reader or not .
I do know it would be a little painful to not have access to at least 2-3 articles per day.For the 5-10 articles I 'd be willing to pay something , but probably $ 10 per year , not per month .
If they are intent on getting it " really , really right " then they need to start with the price .
$ 49.95 / month , as the failed TimesSelect charged , is a non-starter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read probably 5-10 articles per day on the NYT website.
While there are alternatives for free online news, none match the quality.
I don't know if that makes me a power reader or not.
I do know it would be a little painful to not have access to at least 2-3 articles per day.For the 5-10 articles I'd be willing to pay something, but probably $10 per year, not per month.
If they are intent on getting it "really, really right" then they need to start with the price.
$49.95 / month, as the failed TimesSelect charged, is a non-starter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30846128</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264090500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Wayner,</p><p>As I commented on the article, I support the means to make a profit, but the media companies put themselves into a pit of their own making when they decided to initially offer content for free. The survey's support this and this is exactly why media companies are even now largely reluctant to implement any pay-for-news models.</p><p>Backtracking and charging (even if multiple companies do it simultaneously as is being considered) will without a doubt backfire and send readers flocking to free news outlets.</p><p>There are too many "quality" free outlets available (and aggregators) and the drive to continue the free outlet model will quickly surpass paid models because free models will see their advertising and click revenues skyrocket from the influx of readers seeking free news. Free news outlets will therefore see a large profit margin jump - not a drop when such pay models are implemented.</p><p>The free-news movement will be bolstered and become more self-sustaining because the readers are driven by means and convenience. With the explosion of information availability in the Internet and the rapid evolution of technology, sharing and other means of communication - it would be foolish to backtrack to an old model instead of finding a new inventive means of income that doesn't drive readers away.</p><p>You can't put the genie back in the bottle without paying the consequences. This is the only logical conclusion as the information age progresses and pushes forward, not backward.</p><p>To survive in this day and age Media companies need to be inventive and find ways to "attract" users, not "force" them to pay and drive them elsewhere.</p><p>- Gabe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Wayner,As I commented on the article , I support the means to make a profit , but the media companies put themselves into a pit of their own making when they decided to initially offer content for free .
The survey 's support this and this is exactly why media companies are even now largely reluctant to implement any pay-for-news models.Backtracking and charging ( even if multiple companies do it simultaneously as is being considered ) will without a doubt backfire and send readers flocking to free news outlets.There are too many " quality " free outlets available ( and aggregators ) and the drive to continue the free outlet model will quickly surpass paid models because free models will see their advertising and click revenues skyrocket from the influx of readers seeking free news .
Free news outlets will therefore see a large profit margin jump - not a drop when such pay models are implemented.The free-news movement will be bolstered and become more self-sustaining because the readers are driven by means and convenience .
With the explosion of information availability in the Internet and the rapid evolution of technology , sharing and other means of communication - it would be foolish to backtrack to an old model instead of finding a new inventive means of income that does n't drive readers away.You ca n't put the genie back in the bottle without paying the consequences .
This is the only logical conclusion as the information age progresses and pushes forward , not backward.To survive in this day and age Media companies need to be inventive and find ways to " attract " users , not " force " them to pay and drive them elsewhere.- Gabe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Wayner,As I commented on the article, I support the means to make a profit, but the media companies put themselves into a pit of their own making when they decided to initially offer content for free.
The survey's support this and this is exactly why media companies are even now largely reluctant to implement any pay-for-news models.Backtracking and charging (even if multiple companies do it simultaneously as is being considered) will without a doubt backfire and send readers flocking to free news outlets.There are too many "quality" free outlets available (and aggregators) and the drive to continue the free outlet model will quickly surpass paid models because free models will see their advertising and click revenues skyrocket from the influx of readers seeking free news.
Free news outlets will therefore see a large profit margin jump - not a drop when such pay models are implemented.The free-news movement will be bolstered and become more self-sustaining because the readers are driven by means and convenience.
With the explosion of information availability in the Internet and the rapid evolution of technology, sharing and other means of communication - it would be foolish to backtrack to an old model instead of finding a new inventive means of income that doesn't drive readers away.You can't put the genie back in the bottle without paying the consequences.
This is the only logical conclusion as the information age progresses and pushes forward, not backward.To survive in this day and age Media companies need to be inventive and find ways to "attract" users, not "force" them to pay and drive them elsewhere.- Gabe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833806</id>
	<title>Why the WSJ Online is hurting their customers</title>
	<author>Openstandards.net</author>
	<datestamp>1264010040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been paying for Wall Street Journal Online for possibly as long as 10 years.  Robert Murdoch, who purchased it a few years back, has been changing the pay model a lot to maximize revenues. I'm likely to unsubscribe over the next month or so for the first time since I first began using their online service instead of paper.  Here are the changes that have made it worse for paying customers:
<br> <br>

1&gt; Added advertising for paid subscribers.
2&gt; Confused what is free and what is paid for. This is a never ending moving target.  It is very confusing when you try to share something with non-subscribers.
3&gt; Huge price increases at renewal time that I have to renegotiate over the phone.
4&gt; They throw their video content on the home page, which you go to about 20 times a day.  On laptops I use all day in an office environment, I have volume muted so do not benefit from this.  Yet, it freezes Firefox while it downloads the content for about 20-30 seconds every time I click on the home page.  I've asked them to remove it, to no avail.
5&gt; Announced that blackberry access will no longer be included with regular online access.  Separate fee required.  This, to me, is the straw that is breaking the camels back, and why I will unsubscribe as soon as this goes into effect.
<br> <br>
It is sad to see the NYT follow the WSJ's lead in this.  I'm willing to pay for content, but they really do need to find a model that works and stick with it instead of changing it every 3 months.  They are pushing long-time paying customers like me away.
<br> <br>
Erik</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been paying for Wall Street Journal Online for possibly as long as 10 years .
Robert Murdoch , who purchased it a few years back , has been changing the pay model a lot to maximize revenues .
I 'm likely to unsubscribe over the next month or so for the first time since I first began using their online service instead of paper .
Here are the changes that have made it worse for paying customers : 1 &gt; Added advertising for paid subscribers .
2 &gt; Confused what is free and what is paid for .
This is a never ending moving target .
It is very confusing when you try to share something with non-subscribers .
3 &gt; Huge price increases at renewal time that I have to renegotiate over the phone .
4 &gt; They throw their video content on the home page , which you go to about 20 times a day .
On laptops I use all day in an office environment , I have volume muted so do not benefit from this .
Yet , it freezes Firefox while it downloads the content for about 20-30 seconds every time I click on the home page .
I 've asked them to remove it , to no avail .
5 &gt; Announced that blackberry access will no longer be included with regular online access .
Separate fee required .
This , to me , is the straw that is breaking the camels back , and why I will unsubscribe as soon as this goes into effect .
It is sad to see the NYT follow the WSJ 's lead in this .
I 'm willing to pay for content , but they really do need to find a model that works and stick with it instead of changing it every 3 months .
They are pushing long-time paying customers like me away .
Erik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been paying for Wall Street Journal Online for possibly as long as 10 years.
Robert Murdoch, who purchased it a few years back, has been changing the pay model a lot to maximize revenues.
I'm likely to unsubscribe over the next month or so for the first time since I first began using their online service instead of paper.
Here are the changes that have made it worse for paying customers:
 

1&gt; Added advertising for paid subscribers.
2&gt; Confused what is free and what is paid for.
This is a never ending moving target.
It is very confusing when you try to share something with non-subscribers.
3&gt; Huge price increases at renewal time that I have to renegotiate over the phone.
4&gt; They throw their video content on the home page, which you go to about 20 times a day.
On laptops I use all day in an office environment, I have volume muted so do not benefit from this.
Yet, it freezes Firefox while it downloads the content for about 20-30 seconds every time I click on the home page.
I've asked them to remove it, to no avail.
5&gt; Announced that blackberry access will no longer be included with regular online access.
Separate fee required.
This, to me, is the straw that is breaking the camels back, and why I will unsubscribe as soon as this goes into effect.
It is sad to see the NYT follow the WSJ's lead in this.
I'm willing to pay for content, but they really do need to find a model that works and stick with it instead of changing it every 3 months.
They are pushing long-time paying customers like me away.
Erik</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834722</id>
	<title>Another Headline</title>
	<author>gearloos</author>
	<datestamp>1264013640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gearloos Confirms he Will Start Using CNN For Online News In 2011</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gearloos Confirms he Will Start Using CNN For Online News In 2011</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gearloos Confirms he Will Start Using CNN For Online News In 2011</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839288</id>
	<title>$ = Less views</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1263988500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the NYT do this before in the beginning when they went to the web?<br>I ignored them.<br>If they start charging I'll stop reading.<br>There are too many free sources of information.<br>Publishing costs an order of magnitude than it did as print media.<br>I know. I was a publisher, editor, writer, etc.<br>They need to figure out the ad model again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the NYT do this before in the beginning when they went to the web ? I ignored them.If they start charging I 'll stop reading.There are too many free sources of information.Publishing costs an order of magnitude than it did as print media.I know .
I was a publisher , editor , writer , etc.They need to figure out the ad model again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the NYT do this before in the beginning when they went to the web?I ignored them.If they start charging I'll stop reading.There are too many free sources of information.Publishing costs an order of magnitude than it did as print media.I know.
I was a publisher, editor, writer, etc.They need to figure out the ad model again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834090</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1264011180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</p></div><p>Arguably, they already have.  The newspapers have been merging with each other like crazy.</p><p>When it comes to producing "real news", there are only a few newspapers left beyond the local level.  All newspapers that run national news subscribe to the wire services; they're really just sharing stories with each other.</p><p>When local "big" news breaks (e.g. shooting, bridge collapse), the wire service story starts as local news in the local paper, then gets picked up nationally.</p><p>For truly national news, only a few papers report it: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press's own reporters, plus the news networks and a few very high-end bloggers.  That's about it for news gathering.  Everybody else is just relaying it from the others.</p><p>Their international bureaus are nearly all gone as well, except for the papers I mentioned, and they're cut back.</p><p>The local papers still have a reason to exist, the local news, but for national and international, they get it faster and better online.  Unfortunately, local news has a poor draw, and often doesn't even merit a daily paper, even in a medium-sized city.</p><p>You don't want to lose them; they do important work as the Fourth Estate on the local level.  But nobody seems to care much about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90 \ % of the print papers folding.Arguably , they already have .
The newspapers have been merging with each other like crazy.When it comes to producing " real news " , there are only a few newspapers left beyond the local level .
All newspapers that run national news subscribe to the wire services ; they 're really just sharing stories with each other.When local " big " news breaks ( e.g .
shooting , bridge collapse ) , the wire service story starts as local news in the local paper , then gets picked up nationally.For truly national news , only a few papers report it : the New York Times , the Washington Post , the Associated Press 's own reporters , plus the news networks and a few very high-end bloggers .
That 's about it for news gathering .
Everybody else is just relaying it from the others.Their international bureaus are nearly all gone as well , except for the papers I mentioned , and they 're cut back.The local papers still have a reason to exist , the local news , but for national and international , they get it faster and better online .
Unfortunately , local news has a poor draw , and often does n't even merit a daily paper , even in a medium-sized city.You do n't want to lose them ; they do important work as the Fourth Estate on the local level .
But nobody seems to care much about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.Arguably, they already have.
The newspapers have been merging with each other like crazy.When it comes to producing "real news", there are only a few newspapers left beyond the local level.
All newspapers that run national news subscribe to the wire services; they're really just sharing stories with each other.When local "big" news breaks (e.g.
shooting, bridge collapse), the wire service story starts as local news in the local paper, then gets picked up nationally.For truly national news, only a few papers report it: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press's own reporters, plus the news networks and a few very high-end bloggers.
That's about it for news gathering.
Everybody else is just relaying it from the others.Their international bureaus are nearly all gone as well, except for the papers I mentioned, and they're cut back.The local papers still have a reason to exist, the local news, but for national and international, they get it faster and better online.
Unfortunately, local news has a poor draw, and often doesn't even merit a daily paper, even in a medium-sized city.You don't want to lose them; they do important work as the Fourth Estate on the local level.
But nobody seems to care much about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833856</id>
	<title>Part of the blame lies with Google...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1264010220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an insightful column by <a href="http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jan/16/google-should-search-its-own-soul/" title="spokesman.com">Froma Harrop</a> [spokesman.com], she points out that</p><p><i>Google includes links to the whole article, but not before including "snippets" that will suffice as news for many time-pressed readers. Here's an example of the words that Google News recently ripped from the Associated Press: "President Barack Obama on Wednesday promised an all-out rescue and humanitarian effort to help the people of Haiti overcome a 'cruel and incomprehensible' tragedy, the ruinous earthquake that ravaged the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." Note that the AP, not Google, had paid someone in Haiti to write it.</i></p><p><i><br>Google says that those few lines involve "fair use" of the copyrighted material. Its critics, most famously media mogul Rupert Murdoch, call that activity "stealing content." </i></p><p>It's tough to argue with that logic.  As much as I am an advocate for the "information wants to be free" camp, someone is paying to generate the news, and Google isn't helping matters by acting as a wholesale purveyor of content (and profiting off their actions as well).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an insightful column by Froma Harrop [ spokesman.com ] , she points out thatGoogle includes links to the whole article , but not before including " snippets " that will suffice as news for many time-pressed readers .
Here 's an example of the words that Google News recently ripped from the Associated Press : " President Barack Obama on Wednesday promised an all-out rescue and humanitarian effort to help the people of Haiti overcome a 'cruel and incomprehensible ' tragedy , the ruinous earthquake that ravaged the ... " Note that the AP , not Google , had paid someone in Haiti to write it.Google says that those few lines involve " fair use " of the copyrighted material .
Its critics , most famously media mogul Rupert Murdoch , call that activity " stealing content .
" It 's tough to argue with that logic .
As much as I am an advocate for the " information wants to be free " camp , someone is paying to generate the news , and Google is n't helping matters by acting as a wholesale purveyor of content ( and profiting off their actions as well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an insightful column by Froma Harrop [spokesman.com], she points out thatGoogle includes links to the whole article, but not before including "snippets" that will suffice as news for many time-pressed readers.
Here's an example of the words that Google News recently ripped from the Associated Press: "President Barack Obama on Wednesday promised an all-out rescue and humanitarian effort to help the people of Haiti overcome a 'cruel and incomprehensible' tragedy, the ruinous earthquake that ravaged the ..." Note that the AP, not Google, had paid someone in Haiti to write it.Google says that those few lines involve "fair use" of the copyrighted material.
Its critics, most famously media mogul Rupert Murdoch, call that activity "stealing content.
" It's tough to argue with that logic.
As much as I am an advocate for the "information wants to be free" camp, someone is paying to generate the news, and Google isn't helping matters by acting as a wholesale purveyor of content (and profiting off their actions as well).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834212</id>
	<title>The paywall is the next chapter . . .</title>
	<author>base3</author>
	<datestamp>1264011600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . in the life of the New York Times. What remains to be seen now is whether the chapter after that will be Chapter 7 or Chapter 11.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
in the life of the New York Times .
What remains to be seen now is whether the chapter after that will be Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
in the life of the New York Times.
What remains to be seen now is whether the chapter after that will be Chapter 7 or Chapter 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836490</id>
	<title>Micropayments</title>
	<author>jimasksme</author>
	<datestamp>1264020780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe there's a secondary market that the NYT can get into.

Seems to me there doesn't exist any painless way for people to make micropayments for online content.  The NYT could be a pioneer in this market and provide a way for other papers to integrate a micropayment system into their online publications.  Something similar to a "One-click" shopping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe there 's a secondary market that the NYT can get into .
Seems to me there does n't exist any painless way for people to make micropayments for online content .
The NYT could be a pioneer in this market and provide a way for other papers to integrate a micropayment system into their online publications .
Something similar to a " One-click " shopping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe there's a secondary market that the NYT can get into.
Seems to me there doesn't exist any painless way for people to make micropayments for online content.
The NYT could be a pioneer in this market and provide a way for other papers to integrate a micropayment system into their online publications.
Something similar to a "One-click" shopping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835812</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264017840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>Publishers don't create</i>
</p><p>
Seriously, what drugs are you taking?  The NYT creates content by paying reporters and editors to make the content.  They are able to pay these people from sales of their paper newspapers as well as (to a much lesser degree) the ads on their website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishers do n't create Seriously , what drugs are you taking ?
The NYT creates content by paying reporters and editors to make the content .
They are able to pay these people from sales of their paper newspapers as well as ( to a much lesser degree ) the ads on their website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Publishers don't create

Seriously, what drugs are you taking?
The NYT creates content by paying reporters and editors to make the content.
They are able to pay these people from sales of their paper newspapers as well as (to a much lesser degree) the ads on their website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834802</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1264014060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only site I subscribe to is... Slashdot. Why? Well, I use it every day, and the sub has a few small perks that are useful to me. But I probably wouldn't do so except that they made it easy and cheap: it costs me 5 cents per page, paid in $5 units whenever I run out of "pages". (But you knew that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I don't use the NYTimes site nearly that often -- usually I only do so when some link from here refers me there, which amounts to once or twice a month, and occasionally to refer someone to an old article. Okay, as it stands that wouldn't impact me, which is probably fair. Would I consider an arrangement similar to slashdot's? Probably, if I were that regular a reader. But a flat rate? Probably not.</p><p>BTW the oldest login cookie on my computer is from NYTimes.com, dating to 1996<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only site I subscribe to is... Slashdot. Why ?
Well , I use it every day , and the sub has a few small perks that are useful to me .
But I probably would n't do so except that they made it easy and cheap : it costs me 5 cents per page , paid in $ 5 units whenever I run out of " pages " .
( But you knew that .
: ) I do n't use the NYTimes site nearly that often -- usually I only do so when some link from here refers me there , which amounts to once or twice a month , and occasionally to refer someone to an old article .
Okay , as it stands that would n't impact me , which is probably fair .
Would I consider an arrangement similar to slashdot 's ?
Probably , if I were that regular a reader .
But a flat rate ?
Probably not.BTW the oldest login cookie on my computer is from NYTimes.com , dating to 1996 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only site I subscribe to is... Slashdot. Why?
Well, I use it every day, and the sub has a few small perks that are useful to me.
But I probably wouldn't do so except that they made it easy and cheap: it costs me 5 cents per page, paid in $5 units whenever I run out of "pages".
(But you knew that.
:)I don't use the NYTimes site nearly that often -- usually I only do so when some link from here refers me there, which amounts to once or twice a month, and occasionally to refer someone to an old article.
Okay, as it stands that wouldn't impact me, which is probably fair.
Would I consider an arrangement similar to slashdot's?
Probably, if I were that regular a reader.
But a flat rate?
Probably not.BTW the oldest login cookie on my computer is from NYTimes.com, dating to 1996 :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834798</id>
	<title>Think of the Writers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264014060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Op-Ed writers were upset about the pay wall last time. So I imagine they will be part of the "free' sections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Op-Ed writers were upset about the pay wall last time .
So I imagine they will be part of the " free ' sections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Op-Ed writers were upset about the pay wall last time.
So I imagine they will be part of the "free' sections.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835434</id>
	<title>Reason for decreased Viewership?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264016460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people are forgetting why this course of action is being taken : less and less people want to read the NYT and less and less companies want to advertise on the NYT.</p><p>We keep hearing that it is such a travesty and sad state that an established and respected news outlet could go down this path to potential shutdown. The NYT is doing this because less people are reading a newspaper that injects their opinion and doesn't carry important stories that go against their established views. Climate-gate? Wasn't initially carried. Obama's Czars' political and economic affiliations? Not covered. Add to that any critical moderate NEWS of the current administration is not covered in detail.</p><p>UCLA Study of Media Bias : http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx</p><p>"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."</p><p>The vast majority of people are *not* liberal. The NYT put their money in the wrong stock, and are now paying for it. Just wait for the "Newspaper Bailout" articles to start appearing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people are forgetting why this course of action is being taken : less and less people want to read the NYT and less and less companies want to advertise on the NYT.We keep hearing that it is such a travesty and sad state that an established and respected news outlet could go down this path to potential shutdown .
The NYT is doing this because less people are reading a newspaper that injects their opinion and does n't carry important stories that go against their established views .
Climate-gate ? Was n't initially carried .
Obama 's Czars ' political and economic affiliations ?
Not covered .
Add to that any critical moderate NEWS of the current administration is not covered in detail.UCLA Study of Media Bias : http : //newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx " Of the 20 major media outlets studied , 18 scored left of center , with CBS ' " Evening News , " The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second , third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal .
" The vast majority of people are * not * liberal .
The NYT put their money in the wrong stock , and are now paying for it .
Just wait for the " Newspaper Bailout " articles to start appearing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people are forgetting why this course of action is being taken : less and less people want to read the NYT and less and less companies want to advertise on the NYT.We keep hearing that it is such a travesty and sad state that an established and respected news outlet could go down this path to potential shutdown.
The NYT is doing this because less people are reading a newspaper that injects their opinion and doesn't carry important stories that go against their established views.
Climate-gate? Wasn't initially carried.
Obama's Czars' political and economic affiliations?
Not covered.
Add to that any critical moderate NEWS of the current administration is not covered in detail.UCLA Study of Media Bias : http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
"The vast majority of people are *not* liberal.
The NYT put their money in the wrong stock, and are now paying for it.
Just wait for the "Newspaper Bailout" articles to start appearing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832876</id>
	<title>If I subscribe to paper version?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope and wonder if people who subscribe to print/paper version will get free online access. If they don't it will be pretty greedy.  I believe Wall Street Journal provides free online with a paper subscription.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope and wonder if people who subscribe to print/paper version will get free online access .
If they do n't it will be pretty greedy .
I believe Wall Street Journal provides free online with a paper subscription .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope and wonder if people who subscribe to print/paper version will get free online access.
If they don't it will be pretty greedy.
I believe Wall Street Journal provides free online with a paper subscription.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833490</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet"</p></div><p>Yeah, but... she doesn't even read the Internet either. Her response was truthful: she could not answer as she does not read any publications regularly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Palin should have responded " I do n't read Newspapers , I read the news on the internet " Yeah , but... she does n't even read the Internet either .
Her response was truthful : she could not answer as she does not read any publications regularly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet"Yeah, but... she doesn't even read the Internet either.
Her response was truthful: she could not answer as she does not read any publications regularly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834184</id>
	<title>They'll lose readers... but do they care?</title>
	<author>Etherized</author>
	<datestamp>1264011480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pay wall will slash their number of readers to a small fraction of what they have now, but I assume that readership numbers are not their sole criterion for success. The NYT has a reputation for quality irrespective of mass market consumption, and there will be many people who value this quality enough to pay a premium.</p><p>While "the news" in a general sense may already be hopelessly commoditized, the NYT offers a degree of quality that you simply will not find from AP reprints. This is a prestige brand, and it doesn't need the mass market to succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pay wall will slash their number of readers to a small fraction of what they have now , but I assume that readership numbers are not their sole criterion for success .
The NYT has a reputation for quality irrespective of mass market consumption , and there will be many people who value this quality enough to pay a premium.While " the news " in a general sense may already be hopelessly commoditized , the NYT offers a degree of quality that you simply will not find from AP reprints .
This is a prestige brand , and it does n't need the mass market to succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pay wall will slash their number of readers to a small fraction of what they have now, but I assume that readership numbers are not their sole criterion for success.
The NYT has a reputation for quality irrespective of mass market consumption, and there will be many people who value this quality enough to pay a premium.While "the news" in a general sense may already be hopelessly commoditized, the NYT offers a degree of quality that you simply will not find from AP reprints.
This is a prestige brand, and it doesn't need the mass market to succeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833180</id>
	<title>This is not so bad</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will keep content open to search engines.  Occasional readers will not be effected, so there will not be the issue of the draconian pay wall.  For those who wish to read it regularly, there will be an option to pay.  I hope it will be $50 a year rather than $150-200. I must admit that more than $10 a month would put me off. I am sure that physical subscribers will get a free online subscription.
<p>
And for those who love the paper, and want to read it, but hate to pay(I am talking about those who read it every day but refuse to even register) I am sure there will be a way to scramble the data so it can be continued to be read for free.
</p><p>
OTOH, one can a promotion such as a free year to the NYT with the purchase of an Apple branded reading device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will keep content open to search engines .
Occasional readers will not be effected , so there will not be the issue of the draconian pay wall .
For those who wish to read it regularly , there will be an option to pay .
I hope it will be $ 50 a year rather than $ 150-200 .
I must admit that more than $ 10 a month would put me off .
I am sure that physical subscribers will get a free online subscription .
And for those who love the paper , and want to read it , but hate to pay ( I am talking about those who read it every day but refuse to even register ) I am sure there will be a way to scramble the data so it can be continued to be read for free .
OTOH , one can a promotion such as a free year to the NYT with the purchase of an Apple branded reading device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will keep content open to search engines.
Occasional readers will not be effected, so there will not be the issue of the draconian pay wall.
For those who wish to read it regularly, there will be an option to pay.
I hope it will be $50 a year rather than $150-200.
I must admit that more than $10 a month would put me off.
I am sure that physical subscribers will get a free online subscription.
And for those who love the paper, and want to read it, but hate to pay(I am talking about those who read it every day but refuse to even register) I am sure there will be a way to scramble the data so it can be continued to be read for free.
OTOH, one can a promotion such as a free year to the NYT with the purchase of an Apple branded reading device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833398</id>
	<title>Four words:</title>
	<author>Khan</author>
	<datestamp>1264008600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Good luck with that!"</p><p>I try to avoid the NYTimes website as much as possible since there are so many other available resources that are IMO better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Good luck with that !
" I try to avoid the NYTimes website as much as possible since there are so many other available resources that are IMO better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Good luck with that!
"I try to avoid the NYTimes website as much as possible since there are so many other available resources that are IMO better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832936</id>
	<title>Do they seriously think they'll cover their costs?</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264007100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That they'll make <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/06/22/" title="penny-arcade.com">a hojillion dollars</a> [penny-arcade.com] more than they'll lose in setting up and maintaining their paywall, <em>and</em> in reduced advertising revenue from all the eyeballs that they'll lose?

</p><p> <em>Really?</em>  That's some serious hubris they're pitching there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That they 'll make a hojillion dollars [ penny-arcade.com ] more than they 'll lose in setting up and maintaining their paywall , and in reduced advertising revenue from all the eyeballs that they 'll lose ?
Really ? That 's some serious hubris they 're pitching there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That they'll make a hojillion dollars [penny-arcade.com] more than they'll lose in setting up and maintaining their paywall, and in reduced advertising revenue from all the eyeballs that they'll lose?
Really?  That's some serious hubris they're pitching there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834482</id>
	<title>Why not create a NYTimes cable news channel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not create a NYTimes cable news channel with the website for free.<br>It works for Fox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not create a NYTimes cable news channel with the website for free.It works for Fox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not create a NYTimes cable news channel with the website for free.It works for Fox</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833098</id>
	<title>Re:Plenty of other sources</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1264007640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there are only a handful sources of similar content of similar quality, and the two that immediately spring (WSJ and the Economist) are behind pay walls.</p><p>God knows the NYT has its flaws (WMD and Whitewater, as high-profile examples), but in terms of original national (US) reporting it's way above the AP or the BBC.  I think the WSJ is (was?) better, but their big stories (Enron, back-dating options, Vioxx, for example) are obviously business related.  McClatchy seems to have an edge documenting issues with the 'official unnamed' sources, but doesn't do as much elsewhere.  Most other quality sites simply do different things altogether.</p><p>Personally, I pay for the WSJ and browse the NYT free on line.  This will probably make me switch to the NYT for a year and see how I like it as a daily news source.  So, yeah, in my one case their strategy will work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there are only a handful sources of similar content of similar quality , and the two that immediately spring ( WSJ and the Economist ) are behind pay walls.God knows the NYT has its flaws ( WMD and Whitewater , as high-profile examples ) , but in terms of original national ( US ) reporting it 's way above the AP or the BBC .
I think the WSJ is ( was ?
) better , but their big stories ( Enron , back-dating options , Vioxx , for example ) are obviously business related .
McClatchy seems to have an edge documenting issues with the 'official unnamed ' sources , but does n't do as much elsewhere .
Most other quality sites simply do different things altogether.Personally , I pay for the WSJ and browse the NYT free on line .
This will probably make me switch to the NYT for a year and see how I like it as a daily news source .
So , yeah , in my one case their strategy will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there are only a handful sources of similar content of similar quality, and the two that immediately spring (WSJ and the Economist) are behind pay walls.God knows the NYT has its flaws (WMD and Whitewater, as high-profile examples), but in terms of original national (US) reporting it's way above the AP or the BBC.
I think the WSJ is (was?
) better, but their big stories (Enron, back-dating options, Vioxx, for example) are obviously business related.
McClatchy seems to have an edge documenting issues with the 'official unnamed' sources, but doesn't do as much elsewhere.
Most other quality sites simply do different things altogether.Personally, I pay for the WSJ and browse the NYT free on line.
This will probably make me switch to the NYT for a year and see how I like it as a daily news source.
So, yeah, in my one case their strategy will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833658</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1264009500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.</p></div></blockquote><p>From what I heard here tell, she did not read any of the sites you mentioned and gets her info mainly from The Onion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read , Palin should have responded " I do n't read Newspapers , I read the news on the internet " , and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge , LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos , and Huffington Post , not by NYT or Washington Post.From what I heard here tell , she did not read any of the sites you mentioned and gets her info mainly from The Onion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.From what I heard here tell, she did not read any of the sites you mentioned and gets her info mainly from The Onion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833620</id>
	<title>More details</title>
	<author>Tea-Bone of Brooklyn</author>
	<datestamp>1264009380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a link to <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-its-official-new-york-times-will-adopt-online-meter-but-not-until-2011/" title="paidcontent.org" rel="nofollow">some more coverage</a> [paidcontent.org] - a couple more details about what they're planning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a link to some more coverage [ paidcontent.org ] - a couple more details about what they 're planning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a link to some more coverage [paidcontent.org] - a couple more details about what they're planning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833292</id>
	<title>Aggregation</title>
	<author>macintard</author>
	<datestamp>1264008240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's either this or continue the slow boil.  However, I would be more willing to spend my cash for an aggregation service like Google News or something similar.  I use the Internet to get my news not just because it is convenient, but also because the number of sources I can easily review gives me broader coverage.  I have no idea if the Times play will be successful, but I do think they need to examine their business - they aren't just a newspaper company anymore, nor is CNN television news anymore - they're both in the business of news and opinion in general, and are thus competing on similar playing fields.  Perhaps the answer lies in "partnerships" - I would pay for a news partnership that included World, National, and Local news that consisted of, say, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the Denver Post.  I have no idea how feasible it is - this is just my $.02 on what I would pay for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's either this or continue the slow boil .
However , I would be more willing to spend my cash for an aggregation service like Google News or something similar .
I use the Internet to get my news not just because it is convenient , but also because the number of sources I can easily review gives me broader coverage .
I have no idea if the Times play will be successful , but I do think they need to examine their business - they are n't just a newspaper company anymore , nor is CNN television news anymore - they 're both in the business of news and opinion in general , and are thus competing on similar playing fields .
Perhaps the answer lies in " partnerships " - I would pay for a news partnership that included World , National , and Local news that consisted of , say , MSNBC , The New York Times , and the Denver Post .
I have no idea how feasible it is - this is just my $ .02 on what I would pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's either this or continue the slow boil.
However, I would be more willing to spend my cash for an aggregation service like Google News or something similar.
I use the Internet to get my news not just because it is convenient, but also because the number of sources I can easily review gives me broader coverage.
I have no idea if the Times play will be successful, but I do think they need to examine their business - they aren't just a newspaper company anymore, nor is CNN television news anymore - they're both in the business of news and opinion in general, and are thus competing on similar playing fields.
Perhaps the answer lies in "partnerships" - I would pay for a news partnership that included World, National, and Local news that consisted of, say, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the Denver Post.
I have no idea how feasible it is - this is just my $.02 on what I would pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833924</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>JonStewartMill</author>
	<datestamp>1264010520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those are all news aggregators.  They don't write stories, they just reprint them.  I'm not saying they don't play a valuable role, but who's going to actually go out and dig up stories in this brave new world of yours?  Who's going to pay journalists to travel the world and bring back eyewitness reporting?

I agree that <b>print</b> journalism is likely on its last legs, but I really hope that's not true of journalism in general.  If it is, what passes for news in the future will consist entirely of opinion and PR fluff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are all news aggregators .
They do n't write stories , they just reprint them .
I 'm not saying they do n't play a valuable role , but who 's going to actually go out and dig up stories in this brave new world of yours ?
Who 's going to pay journalists to travel the world and bring back eyewitness reporting ?
I agree that print journalism is likely on its last legs , but I really hope that 's not true of journalism in general .
If it is , what passes for news in the future will consist entirely of opinion and PR fluff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are all news aggregators.
They don't write stories, they just reprint them.
I'm not saying they don't play a valuable role, but who's going to actually go out and dig up stories in this brave new world of yours?
Who's going to pay journalists to travel the world and bring back eyewitness reporting?
I agree that print journalism is likely on its last legs, but I really hope that's not true of journalism in general.
If it is, what passes for news in the future will consist entirely of opinion and PR fluff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834676</id>
	<title>Re:Part of the blame lies with Google...</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1264013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I'd say that, ideally, Google News should be redirecting people, not pulling up excerpts that allow people to avoid reading the article at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'd say that , ideally , Google News should be redirecting people , not pulling up excerpts that allow people to avoid reading the article at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'd say that, ideally, Google News should be redirecting people, not pulling up excerpts that allow people to avoid reading the article at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833082</id>
	<title>It won't work, and it is unlikely to be tried...</title>
	<author>paulsnx2</author>
	<datestamp>1264007580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't pay for access to news (unless looking at ads counts as paying).  Few single news sources cover a high enough percentage of the kinds of stories I am interested for me to allocate actual money to said sources.  I'd like access to Nature, and New Scientist, and a number of technical sources, but rely on "second hand" access as other free sources report on *their* stories.  Given that I rarely complete covering these summaries in a day before I have to actually deal with life in the real world, I don't think it is worth my money to get access to things I don't have time to ready anyway.</p><p>The Fate of any news service behind a pay wall or limited free pay wall is obscurity.  No news story in the NY Times can remain exclusive to the NY Times unless nobody cared about that story in the first place.</p><p>But I like the idea that they are going to "wait and see" how others will fare over the year.  I don't have to wait, I can tell them their growth and revenue will be flat at best.  Them kind of returns are not going to excite the NY Times, and I'd bet in the end this will never really happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't pay for access to news ( unless looking at ads counts as paying ) .
Few single news sources cover a high enough percentage of the kinds of stories I am interested for me to allocate actual money to said sources .
I 'd like access to Nature , and New Scientist , and a number of technical sources , but rely on " second hand " access as other free sources report on * their * stories .
Given that I rarely complete covering these summaries in a day before I have to actually deal with life in the real world , I do n't think it is worth my money to get access to things I do n't have time to ready anyway.The Fate of any news service behind a pay wall or limited free pay wall is obscurity .
No news story in the NY Times can remain exclusive to the NY Times unless nobody cared about that story in the first place.But I like the idea that they are going to " wait and see " how others will fare over the year .
I do n't have to wait , I can tell them their growth and revenue will be flat at best .
Them kind of returns are not going to excite the NY Times , and I 'd bet in the end this will never really happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't pay for access to news (unless looking at ads counts as paying).
Few single news sources cover a high enough percentage of the kinds of stories I am interested for me to allocate actual money to said sources.
I'd like access to Nature, and New Scientist, and a number of technical sources, but rely on "second hand" access as other free sources report on *their* stories.
Given that I rarely complete covering these summaries in a day before I have to actually deal with life in the real world, I don't think it is worth my money to get access to things I don't have time to ready anyway.The Fate of any news service behind a pay wall or limited free pay wall is obscurity.
No news story in the NY Times can remain exclusive to the NY Times unless nobody cared about that story in the first place.But I like the idea that they are going to "wait and see" how others will fare over the year.
I don't have to wait, I can tell them their growth and revenue will be flat at best.
Them kind of returns are not going to excite the NY Times, and I'd bet in the end this will never really happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833574</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1264009140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not both? I don't trust Drudge or any of that other crap you were talking about, but they do admittedly break the story first. I'll wait to make up my own mind until I read the high-quality nuanced story from the New York Times, or another quality newspaper. They'll reliably talk about the context of the issue, or implications for other news.</p><p>That, and the NYTimes is pretty damn fast. I read the article about the GOP winning Massachusetts a full 12 minutes after the race was conceded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not both ?
I do n't trust Drudge or any of that other crap you were talking about , but they do admittedly break the story first .
I 'll wait to make up my own mind until I read the high-quality nuanced story from the New York Times , or another quality newspaper .
They 'll reliably talk about the context of the issue , or implications for other news.That , and the NYTimes is pretty damn fast .
I read the article about the GOP winning Massachusetts a full 12 minutes after the race was conceded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not both?
I don't trust Drudge or any of that other crap you were talking about, but they do admittedly break the story first.
I'll wait to make up my own mind until I read the high-quality nuanced story from the New York Times, or another quality newspaper.
They'll reliably talk about the context of the issue, or implications for other news.That, and the NYTimes is pretty damn fast.
I read the article about the GOP winning Massachusetts a full 12 minutes after the race was conceded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30847948</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264098120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The industry needs massive consolidation</p></div> </blockquote><p>The massive consolidation the industry has already undergone in the last few decades is one of the reasons print papers are failing; while it cut costs, it also turned "local" papers into redundant outlets repeating the same stories with almost no distinct reporting or content (other than local <i>ads</i>.) This was an efficiency in terms of the market that existed <i>before</i> the consolidation, but it also killed any advantage that the papers had over many different kinds of online news distribution with access to the same wire services from which the papers were getting most of their stories, just in time for access to the internet to reach the tipping point where getting news online was accessible to the masses.</p><p>The newspapers became very specifically adapted to an environment just as that environment radically changed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The industry needs massive consolidation The massive consolidation the industry has already undergone in the last few decades is one of the reasons print papers are failing ; while it cut costs , it also turned " local " papers into redundant outlets repeating the same stories with almost no distinct reporting or content ( other than local ads .
) This was an efficiency in terms of the market that existed before the consolidation , but it also killed any advantage that the papers had over many different kinds of online news distribution with access to the same wire services from which the papers were getting most of their stories , just in time for access to the internet to reach the tipping point where getting news online was accessible to the masses.The newspapers became very specifically adapted to an environment just as that environment radically changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The industry needs massive consolidation The massive consolidation the industry has already undergone in the last few decades is one of the reasons print papers are failing; while it cut costs, it also turned "local" papers into redundant outlets repeating the same stories with almost no distinct reporting or content (other than local ads.
) This was an efficiency in terms of the market that existed before the consolidation, but it also killed any advantage that the papers had over many different kinds of online news distribution with access to the same wire services from which the papers were getting most of their stories, just in time for access to the internet to reach the tipping point where getting news online was accessible to the masses.The newspapers became very specifically adapted to an environment just as that environment radically changed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833878</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>Znork</author>
	<datestamp>1264010340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.</i></p><p>Not merely stupidity, but that fits some definitions of insanity.</p><p>Of course it will fail, it's fundamental economics. Fewer views for the NYT means less competition for advertising means other papers become more profitable. They're pretty much voluntarily making themselves a non-player.</p><p><i>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</i></p><p>Without a doubt. When there's half a dozen reporters covering a white house press conference and you can fit the press covering the olympics in a bus or two we'd be reaching levels of disturbingly low redundancy. But until then, there simply are nowhere enough readers or hours in the day to consume and carry the resources for the vast overproduction of redundant material produced today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.Not merely stupidity , but that fits some definitions of insanity.Of course it will fail , it 's fundamental economics .
Fewer views for the NYT means less competition for advertising means other papers become more profitable .
They 're pretty much voluntarily making themselves a non-player.The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90 \ % of the print papers folding.Without a doubt .
When there 's half a dozen reporters covering a white house press conference and you can fit the press covering the olympics in a bus or two we 'd be reaching levels of disturbingly low redundancy .
But until then , there simply are nowhere enough readers or hours in the day to consume and carry the resources for the vast overproduction of redundant material produced today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.Not merely stupidity, but that fits some definitions of insanity.Of course it will fail, it's fundamental economics.
Fewer views for the NYT means less competition for advertising means other papers become more profitable.
They're pretty much voluntarily making themselves a non-player.The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.Without a doubt.
When there's half a dozen reporters covering a white house press conference and you can fit the press covering the olympics in a bus or two we'd be reaching levels of disturbingly low redundancy.
But until then, there simply are nowhere enough readers or hours in the day to consume and carry the resources for the vast overproduction of redundant material produced today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832996</id>
	<title>I never access NYTimes.</title>
	<author>autophile</author>
	<datestamp>1264007280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back when NYTimes had set up a paywall/registration-required site, I never wanted to go through the hoops to get to an article. After they stopped doing that, it was just sort of habit not to read articles on the site. So why change now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back when NYTimes had set up a paywall/registration-required site , I never wanted to go through the hoops to get to an article .
After they stopped doing that , it was just sort of habit not to read articles on the site .
So why change now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back when NYTimes had set up a paywall/registration-required site, I never wanted to go through the hoops to get to an article.
After they stopped doing that, it was just sort of habit not to read articles on the site.
So why change now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836012</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1264018680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times, fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't think that's really true; I think that paid professional newsgathering, filtering, writing, and analysis will continue to be important, and that the newspapers and newsmagazines are the institutions best positioned to do that. OTOH, doing that means doing a 180 from the direction they've been heading for most of the last several decades, where they've sought efficiencies by reducing in-house content (especially investigative and analytical content) and focussing on selling ads, and outsourcing much of the newsgathering to wire services whose articles they just reprint. They've lost, first to TV and then to social media on the internet, their place in the universe of mass advertising, which means that they'll need to focus on providing value to a more narrowly-targetted audience that can pay for the work directly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times , fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.I do n't think that 's really true ; I think that paid professional newsgathering , filtering , writing , and analysis will continue to be important , and that the newspapers and newsmagazines are the institutions best positioned to do that .
OTOH , doing that means doing a 180 from the direction they 've been heading for most of the last several decades , where they 've sought efficiencies by reducing in-house content ( especially investigative and analytical content ) and focussing on selling ads , and outsourcing much of the newsgathering to wire services whose articles they just reprint .
They 've lost , first to TV and then to social media on the internet , their place in the universe of mass advertising , which means that they 'll need to focus on providing value to a more narrowly-targetted audience that can pay for the work directly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times, fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.I don't think that's really true; I think that paid professional newsgathering, filtering, writing, and analysis will continue to be important, and that the newspapers and newsmagazines are the institutions best positioned to do that.
OTOH, doing that means doing a 180 from the direction they've been heading for most of the last several decades, where they've sought efficiencies by reducing in-house content (especially investigative and analytical content) and focussing on selling ads, and outsourcing much of the newsgathering to wire services whose articles they just reprint.
They've lost, first to TV and then to social media on the internet, their place in the universe of mass advertising, which means that they'll need to focus on providing value to a more narrowly-targetted audience that can pay for the work directly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</id>
	<title>Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people are missing the point. What we're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.</p><p>Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times, fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.</p><p>When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.</p><p>The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.</p><p>Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet). By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are missing the point .
What we 're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times , fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read , Palin should have responded " I do n't read Newspapers , I read the news on the internet " , and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge , LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos , and Huffington Post , not by NYT or Washington Post.The traditional " National News Media " is fast becoming irrelevant , because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.Information is moving ( literally ) at the speed of light ( Internet ) .
By the time NYT puts it on the front page , it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are missing the point.
What we're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.Newspapers and Magazines are the buggy whips of our times, fighting to stay relevant in an age that has passed them by.When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet).
By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30842814</id>
	<title>The Significance of the Recession in Publishing</title>
	<author>NetSettler</author>
	<datestamp>1264013820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>It won't work. They already know this - they've tried it before. Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results. "This time it's different!" Yes, it is. Much more competition, the Great Recession, high unemployment. 3 more reasons to fail. The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</i> </p></div> </blockquote><p>Actually, I think the real rule is that stupidity is trying the same thing you did before in the same circumstances and expecting different results.  But the circumstances are not the same, as you indicate.  Now it's true the outcome may not be different, but it's not true that it's obvious that the outcome will not be different.</p><p>What's ironic and sad about the fact that you cite the recession is that one reason there's a recession is a lack of jobs.  And the lack of jobs is created by a lack of money to hire people, including at the New York Times.  They are not wanting to charge because they want to stick it to you, they want to survive and to keep people employed.</p><p>So if you think the recession matters--and you must, since you cited it as relevant here--then you should buy a subscription.  And tell your friends to.  And soon if everyone does, it may be seen as a valid business model.</p><p>Imagine that--paying for content.  I know it sounds quaint, but think of the implications:  The actual producers of content would be benefiting for the content they actually produced.  Why on Earth would you be smugly suggesting it was somehow better for people to be feebly rewarded by advertising dollars, which (a) doesn't reward the content producers really, (b) does reward the advertisers when they didn't do anything except pay feeble amounts that don't buy a cup of coffee for most content producers, and (c) drags the entire industry off in search of content that advertisers like instead of in search of content that end-users want.
</p><p>Forget the pay scheme.  I, the end user, want to read stuff because it's good to read, not because someone can find a way to make a buck on accessories for it.   I don't want people preferring to write about the planet Saturn rather than the planet Jupiter because there's a car named Saturn that might put up its ads next to remarks about the planet Saturn.  I want people to write good stuff about any topic they want and then to get paid in proportion to their goodness.  Like used to happen.  Quaint?  I think not.  More like lost rationality.
</p><p>Yes, it might not work.  But like getting a decent health care system, I'd rather see them fail trying than give up because it's a lost cause.  Don't be defeatist, be encouraging.</p><p>One final point:  These are people among the most trusted in the world to report on politics.  If they fold
because you insist they have old-fashioned ways and should yield to the "advertising" model of free content,
the problem is that we may soon find that advertisers are trying to sway them away from things that good
reporters need to cover.  What then?  The news industry suffered a serious blow in the late 60's or maybe early
70's, don't quite recall, when news went commercial and had to show a profit.  That's a tough thing.  But at
least let them show a profit on their actual news, don't make them have to contort news content to be profitable
on some other basis.  If not for them, do it for us: the citizens.  When things go wrong (oops, they have: economy, health, climate change, wars, torture,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) it may turn out to matter.</p><p>And news is not just any industry.  I'm actually not sure most industries are served by lack of variety, but certainly the news industry is not.  So your admonition that a leading free-thinker in news should "consolidate" seems<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, short-sighted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't work .
They already know this - they 've tried it before .
Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results .
" This time it 's different !
" Yes , it is .
Much more competition , the Great Recession , high unemployment .
3 more reasons to fail .
The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90 \ % of the print papers folding .
Actually , I think the real rule is that stupidity is trying the same thing you did before in the same circumstances and expecting different results .
But the circumstances are not the same , as you indicate .
Now it 's true the outcome may not be different , but it 's not true that it 's obvious that the outcome will not be different.What 's ironic and sad about the fact that you cite the recession is that one reason there 's a recession is a lack of jobs .
And the lack of jobs is created by a lack of money to hire people , including at the New York Times .
They are not wanting to charge because they want to stick it to you , they want to survive and to keep people employed.So if you think the recession matters--and you must , since you cited it as relevant here--then you should buy a subscription .
And tell your friends to .
And soon if everyone does , it may be seen as a valid business model.Imagine that--paying for content .
I know it sounds quaint , but think of the implications : The actual producers of content would be benefiting for the content they actually produced .
Why on Earth would you be smugly suggesting it was somehow better for people to be feebly rewarded by advertising dollars , which ( a ) does n't reward the content producers really , ( b ) does reward the advertisers when they did n't do anything except pay feeble amounts that do n't buy a cup of coffee for most content producers , and ( c ) drags the entire industry off in search of content that advertisers like instead of in search of content that end-users want .
Forget the pay scheme .
I , the end user , want to read stuff because it 's good to read , not because someone can find a way to make a buck on accessories for it .
I do n't want people preferring to write about the planet Saturn rather than the planet Jupiter because there 's a car named Saturn that might put up its ads next to remarks about the planet Saturn .
I want people to write good stuff about any topic they want and then to get paid in proportion to their goodness .
Like used to happen .
Quaint ? I think not .
More like lost rationality .
Yes , it might not work .
But like getting a decent health care system , I 'd rather see them fail trying than give up because it 's a lost cause .
Do n't be defeatist , be encouraging.One final point : These are people among the most trusted in the world to report on politics .
If they fold because you insist they have old-fashioned ways and should yield to the " advertising " model of free content , the problem is that we may soon find that advertisers are trying to sway them away from things that good reporters need to cover .
What then ?
The news industry suffered a serious blow in the late 60 's or maybe early 70 's , do n't quite recall , when news went commercial and had to show a profit .
That 's a tough thing .
But at least let them show a profit on their actual news , do n't make them have to contort news content to be profitable on some other basis .
If not for them , do it for us : the citizens .
When things go wrong ( oops , they have : economy , health , climate change , wars , torture , ... ) it may turn out to matter.And news is not just any industry .
I 'm actually not sure most industries are served by lack of variety , but certainly the news industry is not .
So your admonition that a leading free-thinker in news should " consolidate " seems ... well , short-sighted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It won't work.
They already know this - they've tried it before.
Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.
"This time it's different!
" Yes, it is.
Much more competition, the Great Recession, high unemployment.
3 more reasons to fail.
The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.
Actually, I think the real rule is that stupidity is trying the same thing you did before in the same circumstances and expecting different results.
But the circumstances are not the same, as you indicate.
Now it's true the outcome may not be different, but it's not true that it's obvious that the outcome will not be different.What's ironic and sad about the fact that you cite the recession is that one reason there's a recession is a lack of jobs.
And the lack of jobs is created by a lack of money to hire people, including at the New York Times.
They are not wanting to charge because they want to stick it to you, they want to survive and to keep people employed.So if you think the recession matters--and you must, since you cited it as relevant here--then you should buy a subscription.
And tell your friends to.
And soon if everyone does, it may be seen as a valid business model.Imagine that--paying for content.
I know it sounds quaint, but think of the implications:  The actual producers of content would be benefiting for the content they actually produced.
Why on Earth would you be smugly suggesting it was somehow better for people to be feebly rewarded by advertising dollars, which (a) doesn't reward the content producers really, (b) does reward the advertisers when they didn't do anything except pay feeble amounts that don't buy a cup of coffee for most content producers, and (c) drags the entire industry off in search of content that advertisers like instead of in search of content that end-users want.
Forget the pay scheme.
I, the end user, want to read stuff because it's good to read, not because someone can find a way to make a buck on accessories for it.
I don't want people preferring to write about the planet Saturn rather than the planet Jupiter because there's a car named Saturn that might put up its ads next to remarks about the planet Saturn.
I want people to write good stuff about any topic they want and then to get paid in proportion to their goodness.
Like used to happen.
Quaint?  I think not.
More like lost rationality.
Yes, it might not work.
But like getting a decent health care system, I'd rather see them fail trying than give up because it's a lost cause.
Don't be defeatist, be encouraging.One final point:  These are people among the most trusted in the world to report on politics.
If they fold
because you insist they have old-fashioned ways and should yield to the "advertising" model of free content,
the problem is that we may soon find that advertisers are trying to sway them away from things that good
reporters need to cover.
What then?
The news industry suffered a serious blow in the late 60's or maybe early
70's, don't quite recall, when news went commercial and had to show a profit.
That's a tough thing.
But at
least let them show a profit on their actual news, don't make them have to contort news content to be profitable
on some other basis.
If not for them, do it for us: the citizens.
When things go wrong (oops, they have: economy, health, climate change, wars, torture, ...) it may turn out to matter.And news is not just any industry.
I'm actually not sure most industries are served by lack of variety, but certainly the news industry is not.
So your admonition that a leading free-thinker in news should "consolidate" seems ... well, short-sighted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834182</id>
	<title>In other news, NYT goes bankrupt by 2013</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1264011480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Difficult to compete with "free"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Difficult to compete with " free "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Difficult to compete with "free"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835980</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>Bigger John</author>
	<datestamp>1264018500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right... if they're still around in 2011.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right... if they 're still around in 2011 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right... if they're still around in 2011.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832970</id>
	<title>Key Details</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1264007160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month. Most of the key details are not yet determined</i></p><p>Wait, is that key details in the ARTICLE?</p><p><i>Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of (register to read more)</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month .
Most of the key details are not yet determinedWait , is that key details in the ARTICLE ? Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of ( register to read more )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occasional users will still get free access to a certain number of articles per month.
Most of the key details are not yet determinedWait, is that key details in the ARTICLE?Scientists warn of a deadly meteor that will hit the earth in 3 days striking the state of (register to read more)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838666</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1263985920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is he modded down? He has a valid viewpoint. If you disagree reply or mod others up. I don't need the karma; I just think that this is a shame when we could have had a discussion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is he modded down ?
He has a valid viewpoint .
If you disagree reply or mod others up .
I do n't need the karma ; I just think that this is a shame when we could have had a discussion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is he modded down?
He has a valid viewpoint.
If you disagree reply or mod others up.
I don't need the karma; I just think that this is a shame when we could have had a discussion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835110</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264015320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</p></div><p>100\% of the papers out there ALREADY fold.  They're PAPER.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90 \ % of the print papers folding.100 \ % of the papers out there ALREADY fold .
They 're PAPER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.100\% of the papers out there ALREADY fold.
They're PAPER.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834172</id>
	<title>Stupid</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1264011480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This all comes down to a question of value.  The Economist and WSJ can get away with charging for their content because there are enough professionals who actually stand to *make money as a result of the information they read in it.*  News and opinions, on the other hand, don't have economic value.  Sure, they're interesting, but there's no economic differentiation versus merely getting the facts from CNN or whatever.</p><p>When the NYT was available for free, I used to log on once a day and read 2 or 3 articles.  When they launched Times Select, I stopped reading it and got most of my news from the BBC.  When they made everything free again, I started reading again.  Honestly, if I had to pay a subscription fee to every news site I read on a daily basis, I'd be spending hundreds of dollars on news a year.  It's not worth it to me, and as such I'm not going to support that model.</p><p>It seems clear, though, that the status quo is unsustainable.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the next couple of years are going to gut the middle of the road news sources.  Some are going to go to a premium walled-garden model, but most that try it are going to fail.  The rest of the sources will cut quality and quantity.  User-run and -generated sites will be largely immune to this shakeup.</p><p>What I find most interesting, though, is the possibility of news following the music industry - a dearth of well-written, researched news would surely spawn illicit article exchanges, with users filling in the gaps.  The attempts of the RIAA to prevent digital exchange of music actually ended up creating the most sophisticated, democratic and censor-proof music (information) distribution networks in history.  An artist can create a song in their living room using a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment, and this huge, anonymous, scalable volunteer network will ensure that it is cataloged and then mirrored and distributed across the globe.  The idea of the Pirate work ethic getting applied to the news is fascinating, to me, and I find it hard to believe that the downfall of the network of self-congratulating vapid stooges that is the news industry could have anything but good effects for the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This all comes down to a question of value .
The Economist and WSJ can get away with charging for their content because there are enough professionals who actually stand to * make money as a result of the information they read in it .
* News and opinions , on the other hand , do n't have economic value .
Sure , they 're interesting , but there 's no economic differentiation versus merely getting the facts from CNN or whatever.When the NYT was available for free , I used to log on once a day and read 2 or 3 articles .
When they launched Times Select , I stopped reading it and got most of my news from the BBC .
When they made everything free again , I started reading again .
Honestly , if I had to pay a subscription fee to every news site I read on a daily basis , I 'd be spending hundreds of dollars on news a year .
It 's not worth it to me , and as such I 'm not going to support that model.It seems clear , though , that the status quo is unsustainable .
If I had to guess , I 'd say that the next couple of years are going to gut the middle of the road news sources .
Some are going to go to a premium walled-garden model , but most that try it are going to fail .
The rest of the sources will cut quality and quantity .
User-run and -generated sites will be largely immune to this shakeup.What I find most interesting , though , is the possibility of news following the music industry - a dearth of well-written , researched news would surely spawn illicit article exchanges , with users filling in the gaps .
The attempts of the RIAA to prevent digital exchange of music actually ended up creating the most sophisticated , democratic and censor-proof music ( information ) distribution networks in history .
An artist can create a song in their living room using a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment , and this huge , anonymous , scalable volunteer network will ensure that it is cataloged and then mirrored and distributed across the globe .
The idea of the Pirate work ethic getting applied to the news is fascinating , to me , and I find it hard to believe that the downfall of the network of self-congratulating vapid stooges that is the news industry could have anything but good effects for the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This all comes down to a question of value.
The Economist and WSJ can get away with charging for their content because there are enough professionals who actually stand to *make money as a result of the information they read in it.
*  News and opinions, on the other hand, don't have economic value.
Sure, they're interesting, but there's no economic differentiation versus merely getting the facts from CNN or whatever.When the NYT was available for free, I used to log on once a day and read 2 or 3 articles.
When they launched Times Select, I stopped reading it and got most of my news from the BBC.
When they made everything free again, I started reading again.
Honestly, if I had to pay a subscription fee to every news site I read on a daily basis, I'd be spending hundreds of dollars on news a year.
It's not worth it to me, and as such I'm not going to support that model.It seems clear, though, that the status quo is unsustainable.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the next couple of years are going to gut the middle of the road news sources.
Some are going to go to a premium walled-garden model, but most that try it are going to fail.
The rest of the sources will cut quality and quantity.
User-run and -generated sites will be largely immune to this shakeup.What I find most interesting, though, is the possibility of news following the music industry - a dearth of well-written, researched news would surely spawn illicit article exchanges, with users filling in the gaps.
The attempts of the RIAA to prevent digital exchange of music actually ended up creating the most sophisticated, democratic and censor-proof music (information) distribution networks in history.
An artist can create a song in their living room using a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment, and this huge, anonymous, scalable volunteer network will ensure that it is cataloged and then mirrored and distributed across the globe.
The idea of the Pirate work ethic getting applied to the news is fascinating, to me, and I find it hard to believe that the downfall of the network of self-congratulating vapid stooges that is the news industry could have anything but good effects for the country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834158</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1264011420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the grey lady...</p><p>oh, please!  She has been a rumor whore for years.  And when runors were not enough, they just made it up.  While much of what was there was good journalism, you never knew what to trust from them, so the whole lot was worthless.  I have more respect for the NY Post.  At least, you expect it there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the grey lady...oh , please !
She has been a rumor whore for years .
And when runors were not enough , they just made it up .
While much of what was there was good journalism , you never knew what to trust from them , so the whole lot was worthless .
I have more respect for the NY Post .
At least , you expect it there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the grey lady...oh, please!
She has been a rumor whore for years.
And when runors were not enough, they just made it up.
While much of what was there was good journalism, you never knew what to trust from them, so the whole lot was worthless.
I have more respect for the NY Post.
At least, you expect it there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834688</id>
	<title>2011: NYTimes goes bankrupt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>buh bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>buh bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buh bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833826</id>
	<title>Won't work</title>
	<author>Alkonaut</author>
	<datestamp>1264010100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Just charging for everything wont work as long as there are other outlets (as numerous people have already pointed out).
</p><p>
People visiting the site to get a quick look at the latest headlines won't pay for it. Real editorial material though, could possibly be sold. You could have a section of the paper open to subscribers only, while the free site covers only the agencies news stories. Sure, 99.9\% of visitors would not buy the premium subscription, but they still need the volume for the advertisers. Second, we have only discussed these media as "online" and "paper" which is too limited. The online media is starting to take on other forms. Perhaps access to an iphone app or mobile site could only be available to subscribers? E-book readers another possibility to charge a premium. Basic *News* however is just information, and when presented in a normal web browser, the same information is available just a click away.
</p><p>
On a sidenote, the paper and online formats are only competing with eachother in a very small area: the places where the paper format is sold!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just charging for everything wont work as long as there are other outlets ( as numerous people have already pointed out ) .
People visiting the site to get a quick look at the latest headlines wo n't pay for it .
Real editorial material though , could possibly be sold .
You could have a section of the paper open to subscribers only , while the free site covers only the agencies news stories .
Sure , 99.9 \ % of visitors would not buy the premium subscription , but they still need the volume for the advertisers .
Second , we have only discussed these media as " online " and " paper " which is too limited .
The online media is starting to take on other forms .
Perhaps access to an iphone app or mobile site could only be available to subscribers ?
E-book readers another possibility to charge a premium .
Basic * News * however is just information , and when presented in a normal web browser , the same information is available just a click away .
On a sidenote , the paper and online formats are only competing with eachother in a very small area : the places where the paper format is sold !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Just charging for everything wont work as long as there are other outlets (as numerous people have already pointed out).
People visiting the site to get a quick look at the latest headlines won't pay for it.
Real editorial material though, could possibly be sold.
You could have a section of the paper open to subscribers only, while the free site covers only the agencies news stories.
Sure, 99.9\% of visitors would not buy the premium subscription, but they still need the volume for the advertisers.
Second, we have only discussed these media as "online" and "paper" which is too limited.
The online media is starting to take on other forms.
Perhaps access to an iphone app or mobile site could only be available to subscribers?
E-book readers another possibility to charge a premium.
Basic *News* however is just information, and when presented in a normal web browser, the same information is available just a click away.
On a sidenote, the paper and online formats are only competing with eachother in a very small area: the places where the paper format is sold!
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833316</id>
	<title>Re:If I subscribe to paper version?</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1264008300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they don't it will be pretty greedy.</p></div><p>You say that as if they're offering a public service and the management is trying to skim a little of the top for themselves. The fact is, they're a publicly traded company (or are owned by one) and have a responsibility to the share-holders to make as much money as possible. Why would you ever expect a company to not make the most money possible within the confines of ethical business practice?</p><p>The question is simply whether an online pay system will work. The product is certainly of high quality but ad revenues seem to work better online.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't it will be pretty greedy.You say that as if they 're offering a public service and the management is trying to skim a little of the top for themselves .
The fact is , they 're a publicly traded company ( or are owned by one ) and have a responsibility to the share-holders to make as much money as possible .
Why would you ever expect a company to not make the most money possible within the confines of ethical business practice ? The question is simply whether an online pay system will work .
The product is certainly of high quality but ad revenues seem to work better online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't it will be pretty greedy.You say that as if they're offering a public service and the management is trying to skim a little of the top for themselves.
The fact is, they're a publicly traded company (or are owned by one) and have a responsibility to the share-holders to make as much money as possible.
Why would you ever expect a company to not make the most money possible within the confines of ethical business practice?The question is simply whether an online pay system will work.
The product is certainly of high quality but ad revenues seem to work better online.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834664</id>
	<title>Where do I sign?</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1264013400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally, I'm as cranky an information-should-be-free idealogue as slashdot's best.  But the NYT is just different.  I started reading it when it came to the web, but I've become a hapless addict.  Three reasons in ascending order of importance:</p><p>1) The journalism is top-notch.  These days that's not saying as much, but they have a number of Pulitzer-winners and just supporting people like Charlie Savage (formerly Boston Globe) and Jane Meyer ("The Dark Side") gives my wallet warm fuzzies right there.</p><p>2) Very good op-ed contributors, columnists and editorials.  From a wide spectrum, for all its rep as a liberal rag. If you're somebody really important with a message (today, David Stockman on taxing banks; yesterday, Bush &amp; Clinton on Haiti) you flog it to the Times.</p><p>3) Astoundingly good reader comments.  I'm not sure if this is the community or ruthless editing, but the result is like slashdot surfed at "5": first-person contributions from people with decades of experience in the subject; reasoned, informed debates from both sides with very few capitals, exclamation marks or blowhard rhetoric.   If you sort by number of reader recommendations and just read the first few dozen, the commentary is often more informative than the article.</p><p>Bottom line: bring it on.  Charge me a hundred a year.  Or more.  It's worth it.   Good food takes time, and good journalism takes money.  I'm happy to support it.  I get more entertainment hours out of the NYT every year than any two $60 video games, or ten $12 movies.</p><p>I only wish I could say this of even a second newspaper. The reader comments in even the august Washington Post are routinely yahoos shouting insults at each other.   And in my own local Calgary Herald, the reader comments are seldom anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally , I 'm as cranky an information-should-be-free idealogue as slashdot 's best .
But the NYT is just different .
I started reading it when it came to the web , but I 've become a hapless addict .
Three reasons in ascending order of importance : 1 ) The journalism is top-notch .
These days that 's not saying as much , but they have a number of Pulitzer-winners and just supporting people like Charlie Savage ( formerly Boston Globe ) and Jane Meyer ( " The Dark Side " ) gives my wallet warm fuzzies right there.2 ) Very good op-ed contributors , columnists and editorials .
From a wide spectrum , for all its rep as a liberal rag .
If you 're somebody really important with a message ( today , David Stockman on taxing banks ; yesterday , Bush &amp; Clinton on Haiti ) you flog it to the Times.3 ) Astoundingly good reader comments .
I 'm not sure if this is the community or ruthless editing , but the result is like slashdot surfed at " 5 " : first-person contributions from people with decades of experience in the subject ; reasoned , informed debates from both sides with very few capitals , exclamation marks or blowhard rhetoric .
If you sort by number of reader recommendations and just read the first few dozen , the commentary is often more informative than the article.Bottom line : bring it on .
Charge me a hundred a year .
Or more .
It 's worth it .
Good food takes time , and good journalism takes money .
I 'm happy to support it .
I get more entertainment hours out of the NYT every year than any two $ 60 video games , or ten $ 12 movies.I only wish I could say this of even a second newspaper .
The reader comments in even the august Washington Post are routinely yahoos shouting insults at each other .
And in my own local Calgary Herald , the reader comments are seldom anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally, I'm as cranky an information-should-be-free idealogue as slashdot's best.
But the NYT is just different.
I started reading it when it came to the web, but I've become a hapless addict.
Three reasons in ascending order of importance:1) The journalism is top-notch.
These days that's not saying as much, but they have a number of Pulitzer-winners and just supporting people like Charlie Savage (formerly Boston Globe) and Jane Meyer ("The Dark Side") gives my wallet warm fuzzies right there.2) Very good op-ed contributors, columnists and editorials.
From a wide spectrum, for all its rep as a liberal rag.
If you're somebody really important with a message (today, David Stockman on taxing banks; yesterday, Bush &amp; Clinton on Haiti) you flog it to the Times.3) Astoundingly good reader comments.
I'm not sure if this is the community or ruthless editing, but the result is like slashdot surfed at "5": first-person contributions from people with decades of experience in the subject; reasoned, informed debates from both sides with very few capitals, exclamation marks or blowhard rhetoric.
If you sort by number of reader recommendations and just read the first few dozen, the commentary is often more informative than the article.Bottom line: bring it on.
Charge me a hundred a year.
Or more.
It's worth it.
Good food takes time, and good journalism takes money.
I'm happy to support it.
I get more entertainment hours out of the NYT every year than any two $60 video games, or ten $12 movies.I only wish I could say this of even a second newspaper.
The reader comments in even the august Washington Post are routinely yahoos shouting insults at each other.
And in my own local Calgary Herald, the reader comments are seldom anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833786</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>tiberus</author>
	<datestamp>1264009980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people are missing the point. What we're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.</p></div><p>Think you've got something there but, there are other issues as well.  Along with the general decline in circulation in print media there is a disturbing trend toward the reduction or elimination of reporting staff at both print media and other news organizations.</p><p>While your general run-of-the-mill, news of the day and local happenings,  seem to be healthy enough.  In depth, investigative and international reports have suffered greatly.  It's truly distressing when I hear more about what is going on nationally from the BBC than I do from ABC, CBS or NBC.</p><p>While news (print, digital, etc.) is a market and is marketed, where does it end.  Are we doomed to a world full of crop and shrink sound bites, or is something better on the horizon?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are missing the point .
What we 're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.Think you 've got something there but , there are other issues as well .
Along with the general decline in circulation in print media there is a disturbing trend toward the reduction or elimination of reporting staff at both print media and other news organizations.While your general run-of-the-mill , news of the day and local happenings , seem to be healthy enough .
In depth , investigative and international reports have suffered greatly .
It 's truly distressing when I hear more about what is going on nationally from the BBC than I do from ABC , CBS or NBC.While news ( print , digital , etc .
) is a market and is marketed , where does it end .
Are we doomed to a world full of crop and shrink sound bites , or is something better on the horizon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are missing the point.
What we're witnessing is the buggy whips in the age of automobiles transition.Think you've got something there but, there are other issues as well.
Along with the general decline in circulation in print media there is a disturbing trend toward the reduction or elimination of reporting staff at both print media and other news organizations.While your general run-of-the-mill, news of the day and local happenings,  seem to be healthy enough.
In depth, investigative and international reports have suffered greatly.
It's truly distressing when I hear more about what is going on nationally from the BBC than I do from ABC, CBS or NBC.While news (print, digital, etc.
) is a market and is marketed, where does it end.
Are we doomed to a world full of crop and shrink sound bites, or is something better on the horizon?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836362</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>cruachan</author>
	<datestamp>1264020180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're talking about Salon.com - as Daschund says below.  I used to read it regularly, and I did take a Premium subscription for a year when it put up the paywall, but after the first year I stopped and exactly as you say never really went back there again.  Indeed I've only just discovered they took the paywall down thanks to your post!!!  (how ironic is that?).  I read Slate for a bit after that precisely because it didn't have the paywall/ad barrier.</p><p>It is remarkably easy for online media to mess up.  Indeed at a far lower level I used to contribute to Slashdot far more than I do now.  Except several years ago my mod status was removed for no apparent reason (my Karma then, as now, is excellent) and somehow I couldn't be bothered to chase it, I started looking at it less, and before long it's dropped down from a site I used to post a lot to to a sort of glorified news feed I still scan daily as it tends to find stuff I'm interested in (for some reason I never really got into digg).  Oh and the current version of the interface (current as in the past few years) I find irritating compared to the classic layout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking about Salon.com - as Daschund says below .
I used to read it regularly , and I did take a Premium subscription for a year when it put up the paywall , but after the first year I stopped and exactly as you say never really went back there again .
Indeed I 've only just discovered they took the paywall down thanks to your post ! ! !
( how ironic is that ? ) .
I read Slate for a bit after that precisely because it did n't have the paywall/ad barrier.It is remarkably easy for online media to mess up .
Indeed at a far lower level I used to contribute to Slashdot far more than I do now .
Except several years ago my mod status was removed for no apparent reason ( my Karma then , as now , is excellent ) and somehow I could n't be bothered to chase it , I started looking at it less , and before long it 's dropped down from a site I used to post a lot to to a sort of glorified news feed I still scan daily as it tends to find stuff I 'm interested in ( for some reason I never really got into digg ) .
Oh and the current version of the interface ( current as in the past few years ) I find irritating compared to the classic layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking about Salon.com - as Daschund says below.
I used to read it regularly, and I did take a Premium subscription for a year when it put up the paywall, but after the first year I stopped and exactly as you say never really went back there again.
Indeed I've only just discovered they took the paywall down thanks to your post!!!
(how ironic is that?).
I read Slate for a bit after that precisely because it didn't have the paywall/ad barrier.It is remarkably easy for online media to mess up.
Indeed at a far lower level I used to contribute to Slashdot far more than I do now.
Except several years ago my mod status was removed for no apparent reason (my Karma then, as now, is excellent) and somehow I couldn't be bothered to chase it, I started looking at it less, and before long it's dropped down from a site I used to post a lot to to a sort of glorified news feed I still scan daily as it tends to find stuff I'm interested in (for some reason I never really got into digg).
Oh and the current version of the interface (current as in the past few years) I find irritating compared to the classic layout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833876</id>
	<title>Heavens to Betsy!!!</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1264010280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean now I'll need to go to one of the other 10,000 sites to find out what <i>The New York Times</i> transcribed from the spokesperson of whatever administration happens to be in power?  Oh, lordy, lordy, what WILL I do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean now I 'll need to go to one of the other 10,000 sites to find out what The New York Times transcribed from the spokesperson of whatever administration happens to be in power ?
Oh , lordy , lordy , what WILL I do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean now I'll need to go to one of the other 10,000 sites to find out what The New York Times transcribed from the spokesperson of whatever administration happens to be in power?
Oh, lordy, lordy, what WILL I do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30837056</id>
	<title>Only the bloggers will subscribe</title>
	<author>evilninjax</author>
	<datestamp>1263979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this means that likely just the bloggers will subscribe, have something to write about, summarize the content and distro to the people that read the blogs.  I guess that means NYT makes some money off of it, but it forces them into less relevance in the online world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this means that likely just the bloggers will subscribe , have something to write about , summarize the content and distro to the people that read the blogs .
I guess that means NYT makes some money off of it , but it forces them into less relevance in the online world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this means that likely just the bloggers will subscribe, have something to write about, summarize the content and distro to the people that read the blogs.
I guess that means NYT makes some money off of it, but it forces them into less relevance in the online world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833440</id>
	<title>If the NYT was more specialized it could work</title>
	<author>BlueTrin</author>
	<datestamp>1264008720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Economist, the FT and the WSJ are not free. However these are specialist magazines aimed toward people who need opinions and news in finance. I do not see how the NYT will find a niche of people who are willing to pay a subscription.
<br> <br>
What the analysis is probably missing is that, like many people, although I am subscribed to The Economist, the FT AND the WSJ:
<br>
 - 1 - I am more or less forced to read these since it is a part of my job
<br>
 - 2 - The average reader of these magazines is earning more money than your average NYT reader
<br>
 - 3 - I am not paying for these, my company is paying the subscription so I do not care about the price
<br> <br>
In finance, you have specialized magazines such as Risk and Credit which subscription is about a thousand quids a year, and the price of the subscription to the FT is almost irrelevant (except it cannot be higher than the printed version).
<br> <br>
I do not think that many NYT reader will get a subscription trough their job.<br> <br>
However they may succeed to implement a system of micropayments to get a bunch of articles, although my intuition tells me that most of people will just switch to a different news source. As long as there is not a monopoly (an oligopoly to be exact) and someone is willing to provide news for free, you will not be able to sell them, it reminds me of the music industry and piracy although the system of low payments from iTunes worked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Economist , the FT and the WSJ are not free .
However these are specialist magazines aimed toward people who need opinions and news in finance .
I do not see how the NYT will find a niche of people who are willing to pay a subscription .
What the analysis is probably missing is that , like many people , although I am subscribed to The Economist , the FT AND the WSJ : - 1 - I am more or less forced to read these since it is a part of my job - 2 - The average reader of these magazines is earning more money than your average NYT reader - 3 - I am not paying for these , my company is paying the subscription so I do not care about the price In finance , you have specialized magazines such as Risk and Credit which subscription is about a thousand quids a year , and the price of the subscription to the FT is almost irrelevant ( except it can not be higher than the printed version ) .
I do not think that many NYT reader will get a subscription trough their job .
However they may succeed to implement a system of micropayments to get a bunch of articles , although my intuition tells me that most of people will just switch to a different news source .
As long as there is not a monopoly ( an oligopoly to be exact ) and someone is willing to provide news for free , you will not be able to sell them , it reminds me of the music industry and piracy although the system of low payments from iTunes worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Economist, the FT and the WSJ are not free.
However these are specialist magazines aimed toward people who need opinions and news in finance.
I do not see how the NYT will find a niche of people who are willing to pay a subscription.
What the analysis is probably missing is that, like many people, although I am subscribed to The Economist, the FT AND the WSJ:

 - 1 - I am more or less forced to read these since it is a part of my job

 - 2 - The average reader of these magazines is earning more money than your average NYT reader

 - 3 - I am not paying for these, my company is paying the subscription so I do not care about the price
 
In finance, you have specialized magazines such as Risk and Credit which subscription is about a thousand quids a year, and the price of the subscription to the FT is almost irrelevant (except it cannot be higher than the printed version).
I do not think that many NYT reader will get a subscription trough their job.
However they may succeed to implement a system of micropayments to get a bunch of articles, although my intuition tells me that most of people will just switch to a different news source.
As long as there is not a monopoly (an oligopoly to be exact) and someone is willing to provide news for free, you will not be able to sell them, it reminds me of the music industry and piracy although the system of low payments from iTunes worked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833660</id>
	<title>It's all about advertising</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1264009500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As <a href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/01/in\_2011\_well\_pay\_to\_read\_the\_new\_york\_times\_online.php" title="theatlantic.com">this article at The Atlantic</a> [theatlantic.com] points out, the NY Times makes more money from subscriptions than from advertising.  If they can get enough money from subscribers then they don't need to worry about page rank, hits, click-throughs, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As this article at The Atlantic [ theatlantic.com ] points out , the NY Times makes more money from subscriptions than from advertising .
If they can get enough money from subscribers then they do n't need to worry about page rank , hits , click-throughs , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As this article at The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] points out, the NY Times makes more money from subscriptions than from advertising.
If they can get enough money from subscribers then they don't need to worry about page rank, hits, click-throughs, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839162</id>
	<title>Peter: Have the NYT buy Craig's List</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1263987900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Peter: Have the NYT buy Craig's List</p><p>Seriously.</p><p>The problem with your online advertising supported model is that most of the advertising is not regionally relevant, and so does not generate income for your advertisers proportional to your readership.  Regionalizing your advertising would fix this, and prevent you "needing" to throw up a pay wall.</p><p>Micro payments aren't going to save you because no one but the connection-based telephone companies has really got the transaction cost down to under the micropayment cost, and they only do it by amortizing the costs of processing over a number of transactions, and then doing transaction accounting.  This is either done by pre-pay and good accounting on the back end (I can't see someone signing up for a micropayment service plan the way they do for a cell phone service plan), or by good accounting on the back end and post-billing (e.g. like the sub-$0.10 charges per minute for long distance land line calls).</p><p>This is why there are so many small markets like iTunes, or Verizon's bill-me-for-taking-my-phone-out-of-my-pocket services, or other cellular ring tones in the $0.99 range: to get the costs down proportionally.</p><p>If you throw up a pay wall, you are simply going to marginalize the NYT out of existence (worst case) or into regionally bound world irrelevance (best case).  There are other people who provide wire service aggregation, and frankly your non-wire, non-regional content at the NYT is such a small fraction of the overall content that you're not going to be able to get by on selling into anything but a regional market that cares about the ads and non-wire content enough to pay.  I can get my AP and UPI anywhere, and maybe your problem there is trying to support their own outdated model (which should convert to pay-more-for-earlier-access).</p><p>Personally, I value your journalists writing unique content, and I value your editors and their editorial standards and decisions.  But I have to say, I very much do NOT value the rest of your infrastructure that you keep around to no benefit to me.  That includes your presses, your large buildings, and other things which act only as anchors to tie you to the brick-and-mortar world like the Albatross around the neck of the Ancient Mariner.  I have no idea why you need an office other than your laptop, or an editorial meeting room to pitch ideas in other than iChat or some other video chat tool.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peter : Have the NYT buy Craig 's ListSeriously.The problem with your online advertising supported model is that most of the advertising is not regionally relevant , and so does not generate income for your advertisers proportional to your readership .
Regionalizing your advertising would fix this , and prevent you " needing " to throw up a pay wall.Micro payments are n't going to save you because no one but the connection-based telephone companies has really got the transaction cost down to under the micropayment cost , and they only do it by amortizing the costs of processing over a number of transactions , and then doing transaction accounting .
This is either done by pre-pay and good accounting on the back end ( I ca n't see someone signing up for a micropayment service plan the way they do for a cell phone service plan ) , or by good accounting on the back end and post-billing ( e.g .
like the sub- $ 0.10 charges per minute for long distance land line calls ) .This is why there are so many small markets like iTunes , or Verizon 's bill-me-for-taking-my-phone-out-of-my-pocket services , or other cellular ring tones in the $ 0.99 range : to get the costs down proportionally.If you throw up a pay wall , you are simply going to marginalize the NYT out of existence ( worst case ) or into regionally bound world irrelevance ( best case ) .
There are other people who provide wire service aggregation , and frankly your non-wire , non-regional content at the NYT is such a small fraction of the overall content that you 're not going to be able to get by on selling into anything but a regional market that cares about the ads and non-wire content enough to pay .
I can get my AP and UPI anywhere , and maybe your problem there is trying to support their own outdated model ( which should convert to pay-more-for-earlier-access ) .Personally , I value your journalists writing unique content , and I value your editors and their editorial standards and decisions .
But I have to say , I very much do NOT value the rest of your infrastructure that you keep around to no benefit to me .
That includes your presses , your large buildings , and other things which act only as anchors to tie you to the brick-and-mortar world like the Albatross around the neck of the Ancient Mariner .
I have no idea why you need an office other than your laptop , or an editorial meeting room to pitch ideas in other than iChat or some other video chat tool.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peter: Have the NYT buy Craig's ListSeriously.The problem with your online advertising supported model is that most of the advertising is not regionally relevant, and so does not generate income for your advertisers proportional to your readership.
Regionalizing your advertising would fix this, and prevent you "needing" to throw up a pay wall.Micro payments aren't going to save you because no one but the connection-based telephone companies has really got the transaction cost down to under the micropayment cost, and they only do it by amortizing the costs of processing over a number of transactions, and then doing transaction accounting.
This is either done by pre-pay and good accounting on the back end (I can't see someone signing up for a micropayment service plan the way they do for a cell phone service plan), or by good accounting on the back end and post-billing (e.g.
like the sub-$0.10 charges per minute for long distance land line calls).This is why there are so many small markets like iTunes, or Verizon's bill-me-for-taking-my-phone-out-of-my-pocket services, or other cellular ring tones in the $0.99 range: to get the costs down proportionally.If you throw up a pay wall, you are simply going to marginalize the NYT out of existence (worst case) or into regionally bound world irrelevance (best case).
There are other people who provide wire service aggregation, and frankly your non-wire, non-regional content at the NYT is such a small fraction of the overall content that you're not going to be able to get by on selling into anything but a regional market that cares about the ads and non-wire content enough to pay.
I can get my AP and UPI anywhere, and maybe your problem there is trying to support their own outdated model (which should convert to pay-more-for-earlier-access).Personally, I value your journalists writing unique content, and I value your editors and their editorial standards and decisions.
But I have to say, I very much do NOT value the rest of your infrastructure that you keep around to no benefit to me.
That includes your presses, your large buildings, and other things which act only as anchors to tie you to the brick-and-mortar world like the Albatross around the neck of the Ancient Mariner.
I have no idea why you need an office other than your laptop, or an editorial meeting room to pitch ideas in other than iChat or some other video chat tool.-- Terry</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832896</id>
	<title>Plenty of other sources</title>
	<author>HEbGb</author>
	<datestamp>1264006980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of other sources of free (decent) content available on the internet, at least of similar quality.  Obviously, we'll see what the market thinks of all this.</p><p>Of course, I'm sure it will be trivial to game the website anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of other sources of free ( decent ) content available on the internet , at least of similar quality .
Obviously , we 'll see what the market thinks of all this.Of course , I 'm sure it will be trivial to game the website anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of other sources of free (decent) content available on the internet, at least of similar quality.
Obviously, we'll see what the market thinks of all this.Of course, I'm sure it will be trivial to game the website anyhow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835876</id>
	<title>Electronic "book readers" are probably key ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1264018080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, I think one of the big obstacles the newspapers need to overcome with the "move to digital media" is the established "norm" that on the web, your content should be free (or ad banner supported, at least).</p><p>The media corps. always give me the impression that they're screaming and hollering that "Internet users don't value their content", when instead, maybe it's THE MEDIA CORPS. who need to realize they're trying to encroach on a specific type of media that existed long before they arrived, in a "free to all takers" format, by default!</p><p>The Internet started out with content posted by educational institutions, libraries and research labs, along with free contributions on Usenet and the like by anyone who wished to contribute it.  Commercial business didn't even TOUCH the thing until decades later.</p><p>And when most of us think of what commercial business has "contributed" to the Internet since then?  We think of spam emails, spyware trying to monitor the sites we visit, and useless "rich media" web sites that take forever to download, only to offer non-searchable text delivered as graphics content, and typically little real "substance" on the site anyway.</p><p>It's not so much that we reject the notion that you have content worth paying something for....  It's more the idea that you need to serve it up to us in the correct "setting".  The Internet is probably best used as a place to offer *some* free content, so people can easily see what you've got to offer and become "hooked" on going to you for articles.  But I think the advent of e-readers (a la the Kindle, or Apple's upcoming tablet) might be where they need to shift their focus for paid subscription content.  These devices function more like their "dead tree" equivalents.  They're very portable and focus on reading content as a primary point of the device.  People buying them don't generally have expectations or preconceptions that all the content on them should be free, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I think one of the big obstacles the newspapers need to overcome with the " move to digital media " is the established " norm " that on the web , your content should be free ( or ad banner supported , at least ) .The media corps .
always give me the impression that they 're screaming and hollering that " Internet users do n't value their content " , when instead , maybe it 's THE MEDIA CORPS .
who need to realize they 're trying to encroach on a specific type of media that existed long before they arrived , in a " free to all takers " format , by default ! The Internet started out with content posted by educational institutions , libraries and research labs , along with free contributions on Usenet and the like by anyone who wished to contribute it .
Commercial business did n't even TOUCH the thing until decades later.And when most of us think of what commercial business has " contributed " to the Internet since then ?
We think of spam emails , spyware trying to monitor the sites we visit , and useless " rich media " web sites that take forever to download , only to offer non-searchable text delivered as graphics content , and typically little real " substance " on the site anyway.It 's not so much that we reject the notion that you have content worth paying something for.... It 's more the idea that you need to serve it up to us in the correct " setting " .
The Internet is probably best used as a place to offer * some * free content , so people can easily see what you 've got to offer and become " hooked " on going to you for articles .
But I think the advent of e-readers ( a la the Kindle , or Apple 's upcoming tablet ) might be where they need to shift their focus for paid subscription content .
These devices function more like their " dead tree " equivalents .
They 're very portable and focus on reading content as a primary point of the device .
People buying them do n't generally have expectations or preconceptions that all the content on them should be free , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I think one of the big obstacles the newspapers need to overcome with the "move to digital media" is the established "norm" that on the web, your content should be free (or ad banner supported, at least).The media corps.
always give me the impression that they're screaming and hollering that "Internet users don't value their content", when instead, maybe it's THE MEDIA CORPS.
who need to realize they're trying to encroach on a specific type of media that existed long before they arrived, in a "free to all takers" format, by default!The Internet started out with content posted by educational institutions, libraries and research labs, along with free contributions on Usenet and the like by anyone who wished to contribute it.
Commercial business didn't even TOUCH the thing until decades later.And when most of us think of what commercial business has "contributed" to the Internet since then?
We think of spam emails, spyware trying to monitor the sites we visit, and useless "rich media" web sites that take forever to download, only to offer non-searchable text delivered as graphics content, and typically little real "substance" on the site anyway.It's not so much that we reject the notion that you have content worth paying something for....  It's more the idea that you need to serve it up to us in the correct "setting".
The Internet is probably best used as a place to offer *some* free content, so people can easily see what you've got to offer and become "hooked" on going to you for articles.
But I think the advent of e-readers (a la the Kindle, or Apple's upcoming tablet) might be where they need to shift their focus for paid subscription content.
These devices function more like their "dead tree" equivalents.
They're very portable and focus on reading content as a primary point of the device.
People buying them don't generally have expectations or preconceptions that all the content on them should be free, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30857798</id>
	<title>China can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>funny how you don't see such problems in China</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>funny how you do n't see such problems in China</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny how you don't see such problems in China</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833566</id>
	<title>Paynews failed in  Canada already</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1264009140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What will happen is that readers will get their news from other sites, e.g. theglobeandmail, cbc, bbc, cnn...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will happen is that readers will get their news from other sites , e.g .
theglobeandmail , cbc , bbc , cnn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will happen is that readers will get their news from other sites, e.g.
theglobeandmail, cbc, bbc, cnn...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839602</id>
	<title>Pay to play subscription?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263989940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question: Will NYT go to full paid subscriptions for online content?
<br>
<br>
Answer: iTablet (yes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : Will NYT go to full paid subscriptions for online content ?
Answer : iTablet ( yes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: Will NYT go to full paid subscriptions for online content?
Answer: iTablet (yes).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836786</id>
	<title>More room to profit....</title>
	<author>technomom</author>
	<datestamp>1263978840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article-</p><p>"Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper&rsquo;s print edition will receive full access to the site without extra charge"</p><p>So, with a little work, I should be able to....</p><p>1.  Reverse engineer the algorithm used<br>2.  Set up a proxy website to defeat the algorithm<br>3.  Charge 1/2 the price the Times is charging to visit my proxy.<br>4.  Profit!</p><p>Thank you NY Times!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article- " Starting in early 2011 , visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access .
Subscribers to the newspaper    s print edition will receive full access to the site without extra charge " So , with a little work , I should be able to....1 .
Reverse engineer the algorithm used2 .
Set up a proxy website to defeat the algorithm3 .
Charge 1/2 the price the Times is charging to visit my proxy.4 .
Profit ! Thank you NY Times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article-"Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access.
Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site without extra charge"So, with a little work, I should be able to....1.
Reverse engineer the algorithm used2.
Set up a proxy website to defeat the algorithm3.
Charge 1/2 the price the Times is charging to visit my proxy.4.
Profit!Thank you NY Times!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832886</id>
	<title>I have news for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like, you won't be in business by 2011.</p><p>So, this statement is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like , you wo n't be in business by 2011.So , this statement is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like, you won't be in business by 2011.So, this statement is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833736</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>ideonexus</author>
	<datestamp>1264009740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.</i>
</p><p>
Of course, this overlooks the fact that 80-90\% of what these sites are linking to is content hosted on the NYT's, WP, WSJ, and other professionally-produced sources.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read , Palin should have responded " I do n't read Newspapers , I read the news on the internet " , and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge , LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos , and Huffington Post , not by NYT or Washington Post .
Of course , this overlooks the fact that 80-90 \ % of what these sites are linking to is content hosted on the NYT 's , WP , WSJ , and other professionally-produced sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
When Katie Curic asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, Palin should have responded "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.
Of course, this overlooks the fact that 80-90\% of what these sites are linking to is content hosted on the NYT's, WP, WSJ, and other professionally-produced sources.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833758</id>
	<title>Re:I was considering a subscription</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1264009800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York. The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent. NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.</i>

<br>
<br>
If you're not in New York, then why bother going on?<br>
<br>
But seriously, I've found the BBC isn't quite as cosmopolitan, and American newspapers not quite as provincial, as people seem to think.  The New York Times has strong global reporting as good as anything the BBC does, in addition to the NY stuff which you can filter out quite easily if you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player , it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York .
The BBC does truly global coverage , and there 's no American equivalent .
NYT is the closest we have , but they 're going to have to do more to prove that they 're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet .
If you 're not in New York , then why bother going on ?
But seriously , I 've found the BBC is n't quite as cosmopolitan , and American newspapers not quite as provincial , as people seem to think .
The New York Times has strong global reporting as good as anything the BBC does , in addition to the NY stuff which you can filter out quite easily if you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York.
The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent.
NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.
If you're not in New York, then why bother going on?
But seriously, I've found the BBC isn't quite as cosmopolitan, and American newspapers not quite as provincial, as people seem to think.
The New York Times has strong global reporting as good as anything the BBC does, in addition to the NY stuff which you can filter out quite easily if you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834142</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1264011360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Slate did this, the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.</i> </p><p>You make a number of valid points.  However, I believe that you're talking about <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/03/memories-paywall-pioneer" title="guardian.co.uk">Salon.com</a> [guardian.co.uk].  Slate is and (with possibly some limited exceptions I'm not aware of) an advertising-supported site that still gets tons of links and traffic.</p><p>On a more substantive note, two things:  (1) stories will still be free to users who read only a few per month, which helps to avoid the Salon.com problem.  (2) It doesn't take effect until 2011 which means they still have time to abandon the whole thing if advertising revenues tick upwards.</p><p>I still think it's a rotten idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slate did this , the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn .
You make a number of valid points .
However , I believe that you 're talking about Salon.com [ guardian.co.uk ] .
Slate is and ( with possibly some limited exceptions I 'm not aware of ) an advertising-supported site that still gets tons of links and traffic.On a more substantive note , two things : ( 1 ) stories will still be free to users who read only a few per month , which helps to avoid the Salon.com problem .
( 2 ) It does n't take effect until 2011 which means they still have time to abandon the whole thing if advertising revenues tick upwards.I still think it 's a rotten idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Slate did this, the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.
You make a number of valid points.
However, I believe that you're talking about Salon.com [guardian.co.uk].
Slate is and (with possibly some limited exceptions I'm not aware of) an advertising-supported site that still gets tons of links and traffic.On a more substantive note, two things:  (1) stories will still be free to users who read only a few per month, which helps to avoid the Salon.com problem.
(2) It doesn't take effect until 2011 which means they still have time to abandon the whole thing if advertising revenues tick upwards.I still think it's a rotten idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834400</id>
	<title>This just in:</title>
	<author>elentiras</author>
	<datestamp>1264012260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Washington Post to become most read online news source in early 2011!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Washington Post to become most read online news source in early 2011 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Washington Post to become most read online news source in early 2011!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834818</id>
	<title>The WSJ is doing very well, thank you.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264014120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics</i> </p><p>The WSJ online has more than 1 million paying subscribers.</p><p>It is arguably the oldest anf most successful example of pay-for-news-content on the Internet. <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-wsj-online-expanded-pay-plans-include-bundles-micropayments/" title="paidcontent.org">WSJ Online Expanded Pay Plans Include Bundles, Micropayments</a> [paidcontent.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics The WSJ online has more than 1 million paying subscribers.It is arguably the oldest anf most successful example of pay-for-news-content on the Internet .
WSJ Online Expanded Pay Plans Include Bundles , Micropayments [ paidcontent.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it will doubtless use the rest of 2010 to look at how sites like the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times fare before deciding on specifics The WSJ online has more than 1 million paying subscribers.It is arguably the oldest anf most successful example of pay-for-news-content on the Internet.
WSJ Online Expanded Pay Plans Include Bundles, Micropayments [paidcontent.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833056</id>
	<title>As George Carlin once said...</title>
	<author>dburkland</author>
	<datestamp>1264007520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"There's a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with. You could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There 's a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with .
You could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There's a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with.
You could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835486</id>
	<title>I will pay, BUT...</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1264016580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, fuggit, I'll pay for a NY Times subscription. I live in the city, I read the site daily. I understand that they have to pay their reporters and photographers and editors and whatnot.</p><p>BUT THERE BETTER BE NO ADS.</p><p>I mean it. I think they need to make a choice between ad-supported and subscriber-supported. For two reasons:</p><p>1) Fire the ad management machinery and you get rid of a LOT of overhead that doesn't have anything to do with your  core business, which is creating great news and content that people will willing to subscribe to.</p><p>2) Stop depending on advertising and you remove all kinds of messy editorial conflicts. You no longer have pressure from advertisers to soften or pull a story that is critical of them or their industry, you don't have ads competing with content on the page, and we don't have ads sucking cpu cycles on our readers.</p><p>I don't think we have a prayer in this regard, but they really could change the face and motives of journalism in America by switching to a subscriber-supported model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , fuggit , I 'll pay for a NY Times subscription .
I live in the city , I read the site daily .
I understand that they have to pay their reporters and photographers and editors and whatnot.BUT THERE BETTER BE NO ADS.I mean it .
I think they need to make a choice between ad-supported and subscriber-supported .
For two reasons : 1 ) Fire the ad management machinery and you get rid of a LOT of overhead that does n't have anything to do with your core business , which is creating great news and content that people will willing to subscribe to.2 ) Stop depending on advertising and you remove all kinds of messy editorial conflicts .
You no longer have pressure from advertisers to soften or pull a story that is critical of them or their industry , you do n't have ads competing with content on the page , and we do n't have ads sucking cpu cycles on our readers.I do n't think we have a prayer in this regard , but they really could change the face and motives of journalism in America by switching to a subscriber-supported model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, fuggit, I'll pay for a NY Times subscription.
I live in the city, I read the site daily.
I understand that they have to pay their reporters and photographers and editors and whatnot.BUT THERE BETTER BE NO ADS.I mean it.
I think they need to make a choice between ad-supported and subscriber-supported.
For two reasons:1) Fire the ad management machinery and you get rid of a LOT of overhead that doesn't have anything to do with your  core business, which is creating great news and content that people will willing to subscribe to.2) Stop depending on advertising and you remove all kinds of messy editorial conflicts.
You no longer have pressure from advertisers to soften or pull a story that is critical of them or their industry, you don't have ads competing with content on the page, and we don't have ads sucking cpu cycles on our readers.I don't think we have a prayer in this regard, but they really could change the face and motives of journalism in America by switching to a subscriber-supported model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834876</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264014360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...it costs no money to copy [and distribute] something...</p><p>Copying and distributing is what publishers do.  The NYT is a publisher.  They are obsolete.</p><p>&gt; it still costs money to create something.</p><p>Publishers don't create.  If you want to be compensated for what you create you had better come up with a method that does not involve the obsolete publishing industry.  The details are up to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...it costs no money to copy [ and distribute ] something...Copying and distributing is what publishers do .
The NYT is a publisher .
They are obsolete. &gt; it still costs money to create something.Publishers do n't create .
If you want to be compensated for what you create you had better come up with a method that does not involve the obsolete publishing industry .
The details are up to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...it costs no money to copy [and distribute] something...Copying and distributing is what publishers do.
The NYT is a publisher.
They are obsolete.&gt; it still costs money to create something.Publishers don't create.
If you want to be compensated for what you create you had better come up with a method that does not involve the obsolete publishing industry.
The details are up to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833702</id>
	<title>Workaround?</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264009620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious how they intend to implement this.  A workaround might be as simple as deleting some cookies, a trip to bugmenot, or using a leaked university / company-wide password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious how they intend to implement this .
A workaround might be as simple as deleting some cookies , a trip to bugmenot , or using a leaked university / company-wide password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious how they intend to implement this.
A workaround might be as simple as deleting some cookies, a trip to bugmenot, or using a leaked university / company-wide password.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833978</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for responding, Mr. Wayner. It's interesting to hear from someone on the inside of this issue.  I find that I disagree with a lot of the points you listed in the linked piece.  But I find a lot of value in the insight you offer.</p><p>Having said that - I had no idea who the heck you were.  I had to consult Google to get some indication.  I hit Wikipedia to get a bit more insight.  With that in mind, I thought giving your piece a look was worthwhile.  If any of that was locked behind paywalls, I would have zipped along on my merry way, dismissing you out of hand as yet another curiosity that I don't have the motivation to pursue over the boundaries set before me.</p><p>How supporting you as an author while not putting up too great a boundary works... well... now, that is the question, isn't it?  It'll be interesting to watch (in so far as train wrecks invoke a certain facination).  But I don't believe the NY Times has the answer.</p><p>I should note that my interest is a little more than average freeloading consumer of information.  My father is a noted author in his small field.  But he has always had to struggle with the economics of that activity.  It has always been difficult to make money doing what he does - at least on his niche subject matter.  He has a current project that ran in to a dead end with the traditional publishing route and we are currently looking at a more open tactic (open publishing of the bulk of the project linked with paid references, teaching aids, and speaking engagements).  I hope my fascination with my father's project isn't the aforementioned train-wreck variety; only time will tell.  But I do know that traditional strategies / pay walls have only served my father so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for responding , Mr. Wayner. It 's interesting to hear from someone on the inside of this issue .
I find that I disagree with a lot of the points you listed in the linked piece .
But I find a lot of value in the insight you offer.Having said that - I had no idea who the heck you were .
I had to consult Google to get some indication .
I hit Wikipedia to get a bit more insight .
With that in mind , I thought giving your piece a look was worthwhile .
If any of that was locked behind paywalls , I would have zipped along on my merry way , dismissing you out of hand as yet another curiosity that I do n't have the motivation to pursue over the boundaries set before me.How supporting you as an author while not putting up too great a boundary works... well... now , that is the question , is n't it ?
It 'll be interesting to watch ( in so far as train wrecks invoke a certain facination ) .
But I do n't believe the NY Times has the answer.I should note that my interest is a little more than average freeloading consumer of information .
My father is a noted author in his small field .
But he has always had to struggle with the economics of that activity .
It has always been difficult to make money doing what he does - at least on his niche subject matter .
He has a current project that ran in to a dead end with the traditional publishing route and we are currently looking at a more open tactic ( open publishing of the bulk of the project linked with paid references , teaching aids , and speaking engagements ) .
I hope my fascination with my father 's project is n't the aforementioned train-wreck variety ; only time will tell .
But I do know that traditional strategies / pay walls have only served my father so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for responding, Mr. Wayner. It's interesting to hear from someone on the inside of this issue.
I find that I disagree with a lot of the points you listed in the linked piece.
But I find a lot of value in the insight you offer.Having said that - I had no idea who the heck you were.
I had to consult Google to get some indication.
I hit Wikipedia to get a bit more insight.
With that in mind, I thought giving your piece a look was worthwhile.
If any of that was locked behind paywalls, I would have zipped along on my merry way, dismissing you out of hand as yet another curiosity that I don't have the motivation to pursue over the boundaries set before me.How supporting you as an author while not putting up too great a boundary works... well... now, that is the question, isn't it?
It'll be interesting to watch (in so far as train wrecks invoke a certain facination).
But I don't believe the NY Times has the answer.I should note that my interest is a little more than average freeloading consumer of information.
My father is a noted author in his small field.
But he has always had to struggle with the economics of that activity.
It has always been difficult to make money doing what he does - at least on his niche subject matter.
He has a current project that ran in to a dead end with the traditional publishing route and we are currently looking at a more open tactic (open publishing of the bulk of the project linked with paid references, teaching aids, and speaking engagements).
I hope my fascination with my father's project isn't the aforementioned train-wreck variety; only time will tell.
But I do know that traditional strategies / pay walls have only served my father so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833128</id>
	<title>Wot? No slashdotting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, Slashdot hasn't been able to slashdot anyone for years. Stories that would have thousands of comments a few years ago receives maybe a hundred today. Do you think not linking to NYT from Slashdot will make them reconsider? Hehehe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Slashdot has n't been able to slashdot anyone for years .
Stories that would have thousands of comments a few years ago receives maybe a hundred today .
Do you think not linking to NYT from Slashdot will make them reconsider ?
Hehehe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Slashdot hasn't been able to slashdot anyone for years.
Stories that would have thousands of comments a few years ago receives maybe a hundred today.
Do you think not linking to NYT from Slashdot will make them reconsider?
Hehehe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30837750</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1263982860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not entirely true.  See, most "news" content is press releases or other public documents.  Be it from companies, schools, police, courts, or the city/county/state/federal government.  Make something like Google news, which just summarizes from these sources, and automatically ranks them by popularity, and you suddenly have essentially free news.</p><p>This is the problem that the media faces.  They're 99\% cheap filler (like above), and only 1\% (or less) valuable content like investigative reporting.  Problem with that is:</p><p>1) Now that it's so easily available from other, free and more convenient sources, people aren't willing to pay for it anymore.    As a result:</p><p>2) To cut costs, they eliminate that 1\% which is unique and expensive to produce, which helps a little in the short-term, but puts them in direct competition with free news, and eventually undermines their only reason to exist...</p><p>The most obvious example of this would be the likes of CNN, which has devolved into a celeb-watching gossip blog on TV, and can be easily replaced by free news.  Plenty newspapers are in the same boat.</p><p>The strategy which looks long-term viable is cutting costs as much as possible by removing the 99\% FILLER, and instead having a cheaper newspaper that only has that investigative reporting...  Maybe it'll only be 1 page, once a week.  Such is life.  I have yet to see anyone trying this, however.  If they did, maybe it would be worth paying for...  Or better yet, maybe it would be a valuable enough audience that they could get decent ad-rates, and keep it open.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still , in this " new economy " , the very real economics that the majority of content people use ( Computer programs , movies , music , television programs , written articles , etc .
) is content that would not exist if someone was n't being paid to make it.Not entirely true .
See , most " news " content is press releases or other public documents .
Be it from companies , schools , police , courts , or the city/county/state/federal government .
Make something like Google news , which just summarizes from these sources , and automatically ranks them by popularity , and you suddenly have essentially free news.This is the problem that the media faces .
They 're 99 \ % cheap filler ( like above ) , and only 1 \ % ( or less ) valuable content like investigative reporting .
Problem with that is : 1 ) Now that it 's so easily available from other , free and more convenient sources , people are n't willing to pay for it anymore .
As a result : 2 ) To cut costs , they eliminate that 1 \ % which is unique and expensive to produce , which helps a little in the short-term , but puts them in direct competition with free news , and eventually undermines their only reason to exist...The most obvious example of this would be the likes of CNN , which has devolved into a celeb-watching gossip blog on TV , and can be easily replaced by free news .
Plenty newspapers are in the same boat.The strategy which looks long-term viable is cutting costs as much as possible by removing the 99 \ % FILLER , and instead having a cheaper newspaper that only has that investigative reporting... Maybe it 'll only be 1 page , once a week .
Such is life .
I have yet to see anyone trying this , however .
If they did , maybe it would be worth paying for... Or better yet , maybe it would be a valuable enough audience that they could get decent ad-rates , and keep it open .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.
) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.Not entirely true.
See, most "news" content is press releases or other public documents.
Be it from companies, schools, police, courts, or the city/county/state/federal government.
Make something like Google news, which just summarizes from these sources, and automatically ranks them by popularity, and you suddenly have essentially free news.This is the problem that the media faces.
They're 99\% cheap filler (like above), and only 1\% (or less) valuable content like investigative reporting.
Problem with that is:1) Now that it's so easily available from other, free and more convenient sources, people aren't willing to pay for it anymore.
As a result:2) To cut costs, they eliminate that 1\% which is unique and expensive to produce, which helps a little in the short-term, but puts them in direct competition with free news, and eventually undermines their only reason to exist...The most obvious example of this would be the likes of CNN, which has devolved into a celeb-watching gossip blog on TV, and can be easily replaced by free news.
Plenty newspapers are in the same boat.The strategy which looks long-term viable is cutting costs as much as possible by removing the 99\% FILLER, and instead having a cheaper newspaper that only has that investigative reporting...  Maybe it'll only be 1 page, once a week.
Such is life.
I have yet to see anyone trying this, however.
If they did, maybe it would be worth paying for...  Or better yet, maybe it would be a valuable enough audience that they could get decent ad-rates, and keep it open.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834508</id>
	<title>Why pay at all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government propoganda should be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government propoganda should be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government propoganda should be free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833682</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that Drudge, Kos and LGF just link to the newspapers, right? And HuffPo is mostly opinion and analysis.</p><p>TV news is tripe. The blogs are just commentary. Newspapers are still the only place that real reporting is going on. Sure, their days may be numbers, but there is nobody replacing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that Drudge , Kos and LGF just link to the newspapers , right ?
And HuffPo is mostly opinion and analysis.TV news is tripe .
The blogs are just commentary .
Newspapers are still the only place that real reporting is going on .
Sure , their days may be numbers , but there is nobody replacing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that Drudge, Kos and LGF just link to the newspapers, right?
And HuffPo is mostly opinion and analysis.TV news is tripe.
The blogs are just commentary.
Newspapers are still the only place that real reporting is going on.
Sure, their days may be numbers, but there is nobody replacing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834244</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're talking about Salon, not Slate.</p><p>Slate also originally charged, but there is no "damage done". They were purchased by the Washington Post and seem to be doing fine. Salon, not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're talking about Salon , not Slate.Slate also originally charged , but there is no " damage done " .
They were purchased by the Washington Post and seem to be doing fine .
Salon , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're talking about Salon, not Slate.Slate also originally charged, but there is no "damage done".
They were purchased by the Washington Post and seem to be doing fine.
Salon, not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834302</id>
	<title>The submitter doesn't seem tonahe a clue</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264011900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about business.<br>If it goes live in 2011, they have already begum working on int, and won't be using the rest of 2010 to look at how others are doing it.</p><p>Shit takes time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about business.If it goes live in 2011 , they have already begum working on int , and wo n't be using the rest of 2010 to look at how others are doing it.Shit takes time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about business.If it goes live in 2011, they have already begum working on int, and won't be using the rest of 2010 to look at how others are doing it.Shit takes time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833626</id>
	<title>NYTimes Announcement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NYTimes just announce they will start charging in 2011.  They went on to say they will begin bankrupt proceedings in 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NYTimes just announce they will start charging in 2011 .
They went on to say they will begin bankrupt proceedings in 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NYTimes just announce they will start charging in 2011.
They went on to say they will begin bankrupt proceedings in 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>MaraDNS</author>
	<datestamp>1264009320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Mod parent up!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p><p>
Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.
</p><p>
What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to <i>copy</i> something, it still costs money to <i>create</i> something.  There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.
</p><p>
I enjoy reading all of the articles on the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html" title="nytimes.com">New York Times' front page</a> [nytimes.com] every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.
</p><p>
Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'".  I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, <a href="http://maradns.org/" title="maradns.org">a developer of open-source software</a> [maradns.org].
</p><p>
People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user.  A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though <a href="http://samiam.org/mailme.php" title="samiam.org">I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program</a> [samiam.org].
</p><p>
The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community.  In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list.  For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support.  Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service.  Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation.  <a href="http://webconquest.com/" title="webconquest.com">Webconquest</a> [webconquest.com] very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.
</p><p>
Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and <a href="http://samiam.org/slump" title="samiam.org">provided bug fixes and improvements to it</a> [samiam.org]; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code.  And, there is a <a href="http://c-evo.org/" title="c-evo.org">Free Windows Civilization clone</a> [c-evo.org] for Windows which I have <a href="http://samiam.org/cevo" title="samiam.org">provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with</a> [samiam.org].
</p><p>
OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software.  OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !
: ) Seriously , people here love to talk about how the " new economy " makes it possible to remove " artificial scarcity " and make it so everything is free .
What these people ignore is that , even if it costs no money to copy something , it still costs money to create something .
There is still , in this " new economy " , the very real economics that the majority of content people use ( Computer programs , movies , music , television programs , written articles , etc .
) is content that would not exist if someone was n't being paid to make it .
I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times ' front page [ nytimes.com ] every morning , and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers .
Now , I 'm sure someone will point to open source software and say " Mr. MaraDNS , you do n't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy ' " .
I will point out to people who think like this that I am , in fact , a developer of open-source software [ maradns.org ] .
People who think open-source software ( OSS ) makes it possible for all content to be free do n't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user .
A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program , but free , and that they can ask for features or get support for free , and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support , even though I make it clear that I do n't provide free email support for my program [ samiam.org ] .
The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community .
In return , people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program , or supply support on the mailing list .
For example , someone wanted better IPv6 support , supplied patches , and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support .
Another person wanted better Windows service support , and supplied patches to make MaraDNS ' new recursive core be a full Windows service .
Other people answer user 's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation .
Webconquest [ webconquest.com ] very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site .
Likewise , I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it [ samiam.org ] ; when I lost interest in it , another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code .
And , there is a Free Windows Civilization clone [ c-evo.org ] for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with [ samiam.org ] .
OSS does n't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software .
OSS means that we can , together , make free content which complements the for-pay content out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Mod parent up!
:)

Seriously, people here love to talk about how the "new economy" makes it possible to remove "artificial scarcity" and make it so everything is free.
What these people ignore is that, even if it costs no money to copy something, it still costs money to create something.
There is still, in this "new economy", the very real economics that the majority of content people use (Computer programs, movies, music, television programs, written articles, etc.
) is content that would not exist if someone wasn't being paid to make it.
I enjoy reading all of the articles on the New York Times' front page [nytimes.com] every morning, and understand I soon may need to pay for the privilege of reading the quality journalism and writing the the NYT offers.
Now, I'm sure someone will point to open source software and say "Mr. MaraDNS, you don't know about open source software and how this proves that we can have all the compelling content we want for free in the 'new economy'".
I will point out to people who think like this that I am, in fact, a developer of open-source software [maradns.org].
People who think open-source software (OSS) makes it possible for all content to be free don't understand how OSS changes the relationship between the developer and the user.
A lot of people think an OSS program is like a commercial program, but free, and that they can ask for features or get support for free, and it gets pretty tiring to have people email me asking for free support, even though I make it clear that I don't provide free email support for my program [samiam.org].
The thinking behind OSS is that I donate some of my coding time and effort to the greater community.
In return, people are free to contribute bug fixes or improvements to the program, or supply support on the mailing list.
For example, someone wanted better IPv6 support, supplied patches, and now MaraDNS has good IPv6 support.
Another person wanted better Windows service support, and supplied patches to make MaraDNS' new recursive core be a full Windows service.
Other people answer user's questions on the mailing list or translate documentation.
Webconquest [webconquest.com] very generously provides me a free Linux shell account and hosting for the web site.
Likewise, I found an OSS Doom random generator I liked and provided bug fixes and improvements to it [samiam.org]; when I lost interest in it, another person became the maintainer and improvements continue to be made even though I no longer work on that code.
And, there is a Free Windows Civilization clone [c-evo.org] for Windows which I have provided a bug fix and extended the documentation with [samiam.org].
OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software.
OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835388</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1264016220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For truly national news, only a few papers report it: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated</p> </div><p>The New York Times, and the other national news sources, no longer "report": as Stephen Colbert pointed out at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, they transcribe what the administration in power tells them.</p><p>Just look at the way the Times has tacked in its objective reporting over the past decade.  WMD?  Sure, why not.  We are now beginning to see the exposes from eight years of Bush administration, material that might have been of use six or seven years ago.  I'm sure we'll see the exposes of the current administration once the Republicans are back in power.</p><p>I see no reason to pay the Times.  I'll be happy to pay reliable reporters directly, as the new models of paying for valuable reporting begin to emerge.  Maybe those new models will even lead to some information getting out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For truly national news , only a few papers report it : the New York Times , the Washington Post , the Associated The New York Times , and the other national news sources , no longer " report " : as Stephen Colbert pointed out at the White House Correspondent 's Dinner , they transcribe what the administration in power tells them.Just look at the way the Times has tacked in its objective reporting over the past decade .
WMD ? Sure , why not .
We are now beginning to see the exposes from eight years of Bush administration , material that might have been of use six or seven years ago .
I 'm sure we 'll see the exposes of the current administration once the Republicans are back in power.I see no reason to pay the Times .
I 'll be happy to pay reliable reporters directly , as the new models of paying for valuable reporting begin to emerge .
Maybe those new models will even lead to some information getting out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For truly national news, only a few papers report it: the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated The New York Times, and the other national news sources, no longer "report": as Stephen Colbert pointed out at the White House Correspondent's Dinner, they transcribe what the administration in power tells them.Just look at the way the Times has tacked in its objective reporting over the past decade.
WMD?  Sure, why not.
We are now beginning to see the exposes from eight years of Bush administration, material that might have been of use six or seven years ago.
I'm sure we'll see the exposes of the current administration once the Republicans are back in power.I see no reason to pay the Times.
I'll be happy to pay reliable reporters directly, as the new models of paying for valuable reporting begin to emerge.
Maybe those new models will even lead to some information getting out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834166</id>
	<title>Quality News</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1264011420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If mainstream online newspapers would actually provide quality, researched articles instead of the usual nonsense, I'd be willing to pay.  Instead we get, and I paraphrase:</p><p>"A young woman and her child narrowly survived plummeting 20 feet from an embankment while driving to the young child's grandmother's house, says an officer who has asked to remain anonymous because he has not been given leave to talk by his supervisors.</p><p>The officer said the woman lost control of the car which slid off the road and over an embankment where it came to a rest in a gulley some 20 feet down.</p><p>Paramedics were on scene however the woman refused treatment for both herself and the child.  It is unclear why the woman lost control.  The road in that area is fairly straight."</p><p>1) It's not really news...people have minor accidents all the time.<br>2) You can't plummet 20 feet, especially when you're not falling, but merely driving down an embankment.<br>3) No valid, cited sources of information.<br>4) No information for public service about the cause of the accident.</p><p>There's just nothing worth reporting.  Take a couple hours until someone real wants to talk to you, then print.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If mainstream online newspapers would actually provide quality , researched articles instead of the usual nonsense , I 'd be willing to pay .
Instead we get , and I paraphrase : " A young woman and her child narrowly survived plummeting 20 feet from an embankment while driving to the young child 's grandmother 's house , says an officer who has asked to remain anonymous because he has not been given leave to talk by his supervisors.The officer said the woman lost control of the car which slid off the road and over an embankment where it came to a rest in a gulley some 20 feet down.Paramedics were on scene however the woman refused treatment for both herself and the child .
It is unclear why the woman lost control .
The road in that area is fairly straight .
" 1 ) It 's not really news...people have minor accidents all the time.2 ) You ca n't plummet 20 feet , especially when you 're not falling , but merely driving down an embankment.3 ) No valid , cited sources of information.4 ) No information for public service about the cause of the accident.There 's just nothing worth reporting .
Take a couple hours until someone real wants to talk to you , then print .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If mainstream online newspapers would actually provide quality, researched articles instead of the usual nonsense, I'd be willing to pay.
Instead we get, and I paraphrase:"A young woman and her child narrowly survived plummeting 20 feet from an embankment while driving to the young child's grandmother's house, says an officer who has asked to remain anonymous because he has not been given leave to talk by his supervisors.The officer said the woman lost control of the car which slid off the road and over an embankment where it came to a rest in a gulley some 20 feet down.Paramedics were on scene however the woman refused treatment for both herself and the child.
It is unclear why the woman lost control.
The road in that area is fairly straight.
"1) It's not really news...people have minor accidents all the time.2) You can't plummet 20 feet, especially when you're not falling, but merely driving down an embankment.3) No valid, cited sources of information.4) No information for public service about the cause of the accident.There's just nothing worth reporting.
Take a couple hours until someone real wants to talk to you, then print.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834010</id>
	<title>NYTimes?</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1264010880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is that?</p><p>Oh yeah.  Way back, when it had some credibility, this might have been a remote possibility.  Today, when it has as much weight as the NY Post?</p><p>My sides are killing me from the laughter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is that ? Oh yeah .
Way back , when it had some credibility , this might have been a remote possibility .
Today , when it has as much weight as the NY Post ? My sides are killing me from the laughter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is that?Oh yeah.
Way back, when it had some credibility, this might have been a remote possibility.
Today, when it has as much weight as the NY Post?My sides are killing me from the laughter...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833006</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NYT's narrow focus and fraudulent (Duranty, Blair) reportage have made it a paper for morons.</p><p>Good riddance.  Good fucking riddance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NYT 's narrow focus and fraudulent ( Duranty , Blair ) reportage have made it a paper for morons.Good riddance .
Good fucking riddance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NYT's narrow focus and fraudulent (Duranty, Blair) reportage have made it a paper for morons.Good riddance.
Good fucking riddance!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835118</id>
	<title>2011: the year...</title>
	<author>sjonke</author>
	<datestamp>1264015320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that people stopped reading the NYT online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that people stopped reading the NYT online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that people stopped reading the NYT online.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836424</id>
	<title>Re:Key Details</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1264020480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might be the plan, but it's certainly untenable.  Regardless of what method they use for counting (IP address, logins, cookies), it will be trivial to bypass.  Well, trivial for anyone who understands that a monitor is not a CPU (iMac users excluded.. sort of).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might be the plan , but it 's certainly untenable .
Regardless of what method they use for counting ( IP address , logins , cookies ) , it will be trivial to bypass .
Well , trivial for anyone who understands that a monitor is not a CPU ( iMac users excluded.. sort of ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might be the plan, but it's certainly untenable.
Regardless of what method they use for counting (IP address, logins, cookies), it will be trivial to bypass.
Well, trivial for anyone who understands that a monitor is not a CPU (iMac users excluded.. sort of).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833676</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1264009560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.</p><p>The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.</p><p>Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet). By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.</p></div><p>What you're describing applies almost exclusively to celebrity gossip and irrelevant political rumors.  News that doesn't matter after 24 hours tends not to be real news.  At best you get early results of elections or public announcements.  Real reporting isn't simply a list of the obvious facts given by a single source.  It means checking the source, describing differing viewpoints and evaluating those sources, and providing a reader with real insight, not just information.

Real reporting still has its place, and not one of those sites does any.  They're sensationalist aggregators, sort of like Slashdot but with angry political themes.  Bloggers and tweeters also don't do real reporting, either.  They're, at best, sources to be evaluated in a much broader context by real reporters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't read Newspapers , I read the news on the internet " , and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge , LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos , and Huffington Post , not by NYT or Washington Post.The traditional " National News Media " is fast becoming irrelevant , because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.Information is moving ( literally ) at the speed of light ( Internet ) .
By the time NYT puts it on the front page , it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.What you 're describing applies almost exclusively to celebrity gossip and irrelevant political rumors .
News that does n't matter after 24 hours tends not to be real news .
At best you get early results of elections or public announcements .
Real reporting is n't simply a list of the obvious facts given by a single source .
It means checking the source , describing differing viewpoints and evaluating those sources , and providing a reader with real insight , not just information .
Real reporting still has its place , and not one of those sites does any .
They 're sensationalist aggregators , sort of like Slashdot but with angry political themes .
Bloggers and tweeters also do n't do real reporting , either .
They 're , at best , sources to be evaluated in a much broader context by real reporters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "I don't read Newspapers, I read the news on the internet", and mentioned that all the news stories of the day have been driven by sites like Drudge, LittleGreenFootballs and Daily Kos, and Huffington Post, not by NYT or Washington Post.The traditional "National News Media" is fast becoming irrelevant, because information dissemination is faster than a Newspaper can be printed.Information is moving (literally) at the speed of light (Internet).
By the time NYT puts it on the front page, it is often 24 hours too late to be of much use.What you're describing applies almost exclusively to celebrity gossip and irrelevant political rumors.
News that doesn't matter after 24 hours tends not to be real news.
At best you get early results of elections or public announcements.
Real reporting isn't simply a list of the obvious facts given by a single source.
It means checking the source, describing differing viewpoints and evaluating those sources, and providing a reader with real insight, not just information.
Real reporting still has its place, and not one of those sites does any.
They're sensationalist aggregators, sort of like Slashdot but with angry political themes.
Bloggers and tweeters also don't do real reporting, either.
They're, at best, sources to be evaluated in a much broader context by real reporters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834000</id>
	<title>Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see title</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see title</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see title</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834694</id>
	<title>In more news....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NYT announced today that they are planning on declaring bankruptcy in 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NYT announced today that they are planning on declaring bankruptcy in 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NYT announced today that they are planning on declaring bankruptcy in 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</id>
	<title>A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>peterwayner</author>
	<datestamp>1264007460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me first thank everyone who's submitted an article to Slashdot with a link to something I've written. The comments are almost always a great gift and I look forward to reading most of what people write, especially the ones who RTFA.</p><p>My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information. It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook. If we want people to synthesize we have to find some way to come together as a society and fund them.</p><p>I realize that it's attractive to look at the almost non-existent distribution costs of digital content and imagine a world where information can be completely free, but this avoids dealing with the costs of  creating it in the first place. We need to find a good way for everyone who consumes content to effectively share the costs of creating it. If we don't, the information ecosystem will collapse.</p><p>Please be open to the writers and publishers who are going to try out more mechanisms for distributing the costs among the consumers. Try them out and reward the ones that deliver something of value. Ignore the ones that aren't worth your time. But please don't dismiss them out of hand.</p><p>Finally, I want to point out a piece I've written about some of the downsides of the free ecosystem for information. Perhaps this might suggest that there are some advantages in embracing a paywall, at least occasionally.</p><p><a href="http://www.wayner.org/node/67" title="wayner.org">http://www.wayner.org/node/67</a> [wayner.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me first thank everyone who 's submitted an article to Slashdot with a link to something I 've written .
The comments are almost always a great gift and I look forward to reading most of what people write , especially the ones who RTFA.My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information .
It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook .
If we want people to synthesize we have to find some way to come together as a society and fund them.I realize that it 's attractive to look at the almost non-existent distribution costs of digital content and imagine a world where information can be completely free , but this avoids dealing with the costs of creating it in the first place .
We need to find a good way for everyone who consumes content to effectively share the costs of creating it .
If we do n't , the information ecosystem will collapse.Please be open to the writers and publishers who are going to try out more mechanisms for distributing the costs among the consumers .
Try them out and reward the ones that deliver something of value .
Ignore the ones that are n't worth your time .
But please do n't dismiss them out of hand.Finally , I want to point out a piece I 've written about some of the downsides of the free ecosystem for information .
Perhaps this might suggest that there are some advantages in embracing a paywall , at least occasionally.http : //www.wayner.org/node/67 [ wayner.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me first thank everyone who's submitted an article to Slashdot with a link to something I've written.
The comments are almost always a great gift and I look forward to reading most of what people write, especially the ones who RTFA.My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information.
It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook.
If we want people to synthesize we have to find some way to come together as a society and fund them.I realize that it's attractive to look at the almost non-existent distribution costs of digital content and imagine a world where information can be completely free, but this avoids dealing with the costs of  creating it in the first place.
We need to find a good way for everyone who consumes content to effectively share the costs of creating it.
If we don't, the information ecosystem will collapse.Please be open to the writers and publishers who are going to try out more mechanisms for distributing the costs among the consumers.
Try them out and reward the ones that deliver something of value.
Ignore the ones that aren't worth your time.
But please don't dismiss them out of hand.Finally, I want to point out a piece I've written about some of the downsides of the free ecosystem for information.
Perhaps this might suggest that there are some advantages in embracing a paywall, at least occasionally.http://www.wayner.org/node/67 [wayner.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846</id>
	<title>Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264006800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue "OMFG They're so irrelevant!" whiners.</p><p>Frankly, it's about time. They spend millions a year to produce a product (written news stories) and they have two delivery formats for said product: One, a pay product printed on dead trees, which accounts for the vast majority of their revenue. And two, a free digital product that doesn't make shit, with the added bonus that it makes their paying product worthless.</p><p>Seems like a no-brainer. Now, the question becomes, will they charge a fair price, or will they pull a record company move, and try to charge the same for a physical and a digital product?</p><p>One thing is for sure. If it works out for them, you're going to see tons of print outlets following suit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue " OMFG They 're so irrelevant !
" whiners.Frankly , it 's about time .
They spend millions a year to produce a product ( written news stories ) and they have two delivery formats for said product : One , a pay product printed on dead trees , which accounts for the vast majority of their revenue .
And two , a free digital product that does n't make shit , with the added bonus that it makes their paying product worthless.Seems like a no-brainer .
Now , the question becomes , will they charge a fair price , or will they pull a record company move , and try to charge the same for a physical and a digital product ? One thing is for sure .
If it works out for them , you 're going to see tons of print outlets following suit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue "OMFG They're so irrelevant!
" whiners.Frankly, it's about time.
They spend millions a year to produce a product (written news stories) and they have two delivery formats for said product: One, a pay product printed on dead trees, which accounts for the vast majority of their revenue.
And two, a free digital product that doesn't make shit, with the added bonus that it makes their paying product worthless.Seems like a no-brainer.
Now, the question becomes, will they charge a fair price, or will they pull a record company move, and try to charge the same for a physical and a digital product?One thing is for sure.
If it works out for them, you're going to see tons of print outlets following suit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836250</id>
	<title>Free Online Culture</title>
	<author>jtla</author>
	<datestamp>1264019760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the biggest problem facing the nytimes and other sites that deliver a quality online product is that everyone is accustomed to getting everything free online.

<p>Most people go into a movie theater and pay $5 for a tube of popcorn that is worth 50 cents but balk at paying a dime for a product that many gladly paid for before the internet.

</p><p>The fact is just about none of the creators of the news content are making money online so when people suggest going to another similar free site, guess what that site is not profitable either. I think the only logical outcomes are some sort of pay system or a system that consolidates to the point that all of our news comes from one or two sources which would not be a good thing for a democratic society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the biggest problem facing the nytimes and other sites that deliver a quality online product is that everyone is accustomed to getting everything free online .
Most people go into a movie theater and pay $ 5 for a tube of popcorn that is worth 50 cents but balk at paying a dime for a product that many gladly paid for before the internet .
The fact is just about none of the creators of the news content are making money online so when people suggest going to another similar free site , guess what that site is not profitable either .
I think the only logical outcomes are some sort of pay system or a system that consolidates to the point that all of our news comes from one or two sources which would not be a good thing for a democratic society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the biggest problem facing the nytimes and other sites that deliver a quality online product is that everyone is accustomed to getting everything free online.
Most people go into a movie theater and pay $5 for a tube of popcorn that is worth 50 cents but balk at paying a dime for a product that many gladly paid for before the internet.
The fact is just about none of the creators of the news content are making money online so when people suggest going to another similar free site, guess what that site is not profitable either.
I think the only logical outcomes are some sort of pay system or a system that consolidates to the point that all of our news comes from one or two sources which would not be a good thing for a democratic society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30841778</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264004640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having said that - I had no idea who the heck you were.  I had to consult Google to get some indication.  I hit Wikipedia to get a bit more insight.</p></div><p>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... who was he?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having said that - I had no idea who the heck you were .
I had to consult Google to get some indication .
I hit Wikipedia to get a bit more insight.So ... who was he ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having said that - I had no idea who the heck you were.
I had to consult Google to get some indication.
I hit Wikipedia to get a bit more insight.So ... who was he?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833312</id>
	<title>Some people will pay, most won't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I regularly read The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail (I apologise in advance; it's just that I like to know what Fascist Britain is getting up to from time to time) online.  I wouldn't read any of these if they were behind a pay wall.  I did subscribe to the FT for a month (a free month) but what was contained therein was not compelling enough for me to actually give them a monthly sub.  I can get free news elsewhere, e.g. the BBC online website (leftist, ethnic-peace bicycle politically correct news I grant you, but news nonetheless) and various blogs.<br>
<br>
The fact of the matter is that most people when compelled to pay, will simply move their viewing elsewhere.  As long as there are places to get news online free of charge, pay-walls won't work for the masses.  I guess the next step of course, once the pay-walls have gone up, is to claim copyright over any and every story to prevent publication in blogs!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I regularly read The Times , The Telegraph , The Daily Mail ( I apologise in advance ; it 's just that I like to know what Fascist Britain is getting up to from time to time ) online .
I would n't read any of these if they were behind a pay wall .
I did subscribe to the FT for a month ( a free month ) but what was contained therein was not compelling enough for me to actually give them a monthly sub .
I can get free news elsewhere , e.g .
the BBC online website ( leftist , ethnic-peace bicycle politically correct news I grant you , but news nonetheless ) and various blogs .
The fact of the matter is that most people when compelled to pay , will simply move their viewing elsewhere .
As long as there are places to get news online free of charge , pay-walls wo n't work for the masses .
I guess the next step of course , once the pay-walls have gone up , is to claim copyright over any and every story to prevent publication in blogs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I regularly read The Times, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail (I apologise in advance; it's just that I like to know what Fascist Britain is getting up to from time to time) online.
I wouldn't read any of these if they were behind a pay wall.
I did subscribe to the FT for a month (a free month) but what was contained therein was not compelling enough for me to actually give them a monthly sub.
I can get free news elsewhere, e.g.
the BBC online website (leftist, ethnic-peace bicycle politically correct news I grant you, but news nonetheless) and various blogs.
The fact of the matter is that most people when compelled to pay, will simply move their viewing elsewhere.
As long as there are places to get news online free of charge, pay-walls won't work for the masses.
I guess the next step of course, once the pay-walls have gone up, is to claim copyright over any and every story to prevent publication in blogs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834266</id>
	<title>Morons in the news</title>
	<author>woboyle</author>
	<datestamp>1264011780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The NY Times is shooting itself in the foot, big time. Readership == advertising revenues. Charging to read == less readership (they will lose me for sure) == less advertising revenues == lower profits == bigger losses == no more NYT.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY Times is shooting itself in the foot , big time .
Readership = = advertising revenues .
Charging to read = = less readership ( they will lose me for sure ) = = less advertising revenues = = lower profits = = bigger losses = = no more NYT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY Times is shooting itself in the foot, big time.
Readership == advertising revenues.
Charging to read == less readership (they will lose me for sure) == less advertising revenues == lower profits == bigger losses == no more NYT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</id>
	<title>The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>onyxruby</author>
	<datestamp>1264008060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slate did this, the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.</p><p>They used to be a popular well read site that decided that a paywall was the way to, regardless of what their readers told them. They later added an interactive ad that you had to get through as a means of allowing people to visit without paying. By the time the word they changed back to an ad based site for free the damage was done. By then it was too late and a fair part of their user base had been alienated and simply moved on.</p><p>How many people would be surprised that Slate is no longer a pay site, and you can simply read it without any hoops? I would imagine a fair number of people as they probably haven't visited the site in years. For the meanwhile, the damage has been done and Slate is a shadow of their former self.</p><p>I've said before, and I'll say it again, the news is a commodity, if you want visitors you have to differentiate yourself against Reuters and the Associated Press. You can either do that with original reporting and or a better experience. Adding a paywall only works with a substantial investment in one or both, witness the Wall Street Journal which has original repoorting of high quality for an example and has been behind a paywall for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slate did this , the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.They used to be a popular well read site that decided that a paywall was the way to , regardless of what their readers told them .
They later added an interactive ad that you had to get through as a means of allowing people to visit without paying .
By the time the word they changed back to an ad based site for free the damage was done .
By then it was too late and a fair part of their user base had been alienated and simply moved on.How many people would be surprised that Slate is no longer a pay site , and you can simply read it without any hoops ?
I would imagine a fair number of people as they probably have n't visited the site in years .
For the meanwhile , the damage has been done and Slate is a shadow of their former self.I 've said before , and I 'll say it again , the news is a commodity , if you want visitors you have to differentiate yourself against Reuters and the Associated Press .
You can either do that with original reporting and or a better experience .
Adding a paywall only works with a substantial investment in one or both , witness the Wall Street Journal which has original repoorting of high quality for an example and has been behind a paywall for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slate did this, the NYT should talk to their management about lessons learedn.They used to be a popular well read site that decided that a paywall was the way to, regardless of what their readers told them.
They later added an interactive ad that you had to get through as a means of allowing people to visit without paying.
By the time the word they changed back to an ad based site for free the damage was done.
By then it was too late and a fair part of their user base had been alienated and simply moved on.How many people would be surprised that Slate is no longer a pay site, and you can simply read it without any hoops?
I would imagine a fair number of people as they probably haven't visited the site in years.
For the meanwhile, the damage has been done and Slate is a shadow of their former self.I've said before, and I'll say it again, the news is a commodity, if you want visitors you have to differentiate yourself against Reuters and the Associated Press.
You can either do that with original reporting and or a better experience.
Adding a paywall only works with a substantial investment in one or both, witness the Wall Street Journal which has original repoorting of high quality for an example and has been behind a paywall for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834084</id>
	<title>Goes both ways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264011180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with most new revenue models being applied to content is their willingness to overcharge.</p><p>Think about it, if you want people to try bondage you don't immediately bind and gag them to the point of severe restriction of blood flow.  You start out light.  Maybe a little playful paddling.  Then you build slowly to full bondage and dripping hot wax on their genitals.</p><p>These revenue models should work the same way: start by charging a low price, and see what sort of revenues you get from that.  Build from there.</p><p>I also advocate micropayments.  Don't be closed to the idea that a niche article might be a hit with a certain group of people (eg, bondage fetishists) who will each pay $10 (there are thousands of us).  The average piece of content isn't something I feel would be worth extra payment, but not a day goes by that I don't find at least one thing on the web I'd gladly throw at least a dollar to the creators for.</p><p>But if you do micropayments be prepared to let the rest of us participate.  A comment on an article might be where I want to reward the effort, and if I can't I'll be reluctant to reward the article's authors either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with most new revenue models being applied to content is their willingness to overcharge.Think about it , if you want people to try bondage you do n't immediately bind and gag them to the point of severe restriction of blood flow .
You start out light .
Maybe a little playful paddling .
Then you build slowly to full bondage and dripping hot wax on their genitals.These revenue models should work the same way : start by charging a low price , and see what sort of revenues you get from that .
Build from there.I also advocate micropayments .
Do n't be closed to the idea that a niche article might be a hit with a certain group of people ( eg , bondage fetishists ) who will each pay $ 10 ( there are thousands of us ) .
The average piece of content is n't something I feel would be worth extra payment , but not a day goes by that I do n't find at least one thing on the web I 'd gladly throw at least a dollar to the creators for.But if you do micropayments be prepared to let the rest of us participate .
A comment on an article might be where I want to reward the effort , and if I ca n't I 'll be reluctant to reward the article 's authors either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with most new revenue models being applied to content is their willingness to overcharge.Think about it, if you want people to try bondage you don't immediately bind and gag them to the point of severe restriction of blood flow.
You start out light.
Maybe a little playful paddling.
Then you build slowly to full bondage and dripping hot wax on their genitals.These revenue models should work the same way: start by charging a low price, and see what sort of revenues you get from that.
Build from there.I also advocate micropayments.
Don't be closed to the idea that a niche article might be a hit with a certain group of people (eg, bondage fetishists) who will each pay $10 (there are thousands of us).
The average piece of content isn't something I feel would be worth extra payment, but not a day goes by that I don't find at least one thing on the web I'd gladly throw at least a dollar to the creators for.But if you do micropayments be prepared to let the rest of us participate.
A comment on an article might be where I want to reward the effort, and if I can't I'll be reluctant to reward the article's authors either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838334</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263984780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software. OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there."</p><p>Which, applied to news, would suggest that something like Wikinews or Indymedia or Youtube ought to arise to fill the reporting gap.</p><p>I don't think either of those channels work as such - but, well. I'm watching, eg, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/seeingUFOsPA" title="youtube.com">Alison Kruse</a> [youtube.com] because it's interesting first-person reporting on a topic which intrigues me. Obviously others disagree about the value of her material, but I like that I have the choice to evaluate it for myself, and this would not be possible without Youtube as an open upload or 'feed' site.</p><p>So there must be lots of first-person reporting we can feed into an open-source news grid. The problem is how to somehow establish bona fides and how to fund the indepth analysis which SOME newspapers give.</p><p>Unfortunately, the Iraq War really was the last nail in the coffin of traditional media for me. Almost to a man, all the big US papers lined up behind an utterly manipulated agenda. The best news source I found in early 2003 was the libertarian news aggregator site antiwar.com, which ferreted out all the international and local-paper stories which didn't filter up to the NYT or Washington Post front page.</p><p>Scoop.co.nz is another example of a new-media news play. One of their distinctives is that they show live unfiltered political party announcements rather than just doing commentary - and I think this is the direction that online news has to go. Stop trying to be a one-way "processed news product" where you package news plus commentary in one chunk, and split the two out. Then realise that your readers can also become your reporters if you give them a little trust. It's a hard thing to realise that "value-added content" actually means "value-subtracted" in many cases, but it's true.</p><p>There are attribution and funding systems which still need to emerge. But the OSS model is already working for news, in the social network grid, where 'what my friends are doing' IS always relevant local news to someone. If you have enough micro-news sources then analysis can emerge on top of that, and if we each do a little bit of feed and analysis we can potentially build a much more robust news ecosystem than one dominated by big heroic superstars - who may not turn out to be all that superheroic - certainly Iraq proved that the superstars had feet of clay, not an Edward Morrow among them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" OSS does n't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software .
OSS means that we can , together , make free content which complements the for-pay content out there .
" Which , applied to news , would suggest that something like Wikinews or Indymedia or Youtube ought to arise to fill the reporting gap.I do n't think either of those channels work as such - but , well .
I 'm watching , eg , Alison Kruse [ youtube.com ] because it 's interesting first-person reporting on a topic which intrigues me .
Obviously others disagree about the value of her material , but I like that I have the choice to evaluate it for myself , and this would not be possible without Youtube as an open upload or 'feed ' site.So there must be lots of first-person reporting we can feed into an open-source news grid .
The problem is how to somehow establish bona fides and how to fund the indepth analysis which SOME newspapers give.Unfortunately , the Iraq War really was the last nail in the coffin of traditional media for me .
Almost to a man , all the big US papers lined up behind an utterly manipulated agenda .
The best news source I found in early 2003 was the libertarian news aggregator site antiwar.com , which ferreted out all the international and local-paper stories which did n't filter up to the NYT or Washington Post front page.Scoop.co.nz is another example of a new-media news play .
One of their distinctives is that they show live unfiltered political party announcements rather than just doing commentary - and I think this is the direction that online news has to go .
Stop trying to be a one-way " processed news product " where you package news plus commentary in one chunk , and split the two out .
Then realise that your readers can also become your reporters if you give them a little trust .
It 's a hard thing to realise that " value-added content " actually means " value-subtracted " in many cases , but it 's true.There are attribution and funding systems which still need to emerge .
But the OSS model is already working for news , in the social network grid , where 'what my friends are doing ' IS always relevant local news to someone .
If you have enough micro-news sources then analysis can emerge on top of that , and if we each do a little bit of feed and analysis we can potentially build a much more robust news ecosystem than one dominated by big heroic superstars - who may not turn out to be all that superheroic - certainly Iraq proved that the superstars had feet of clay , not an Edward Morrow among them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OSS doesn't mean we have the right to demand all content be free or are justified in pirating media and software.
OSS means that we can, together, make free content which complements the for-pay content out there.
"Which, applied to news, would suggest that something like Wikinews or Indymedia or Youtube ought to arise to fill the reporting gap.I don't think either of those channels work as such - but, well.
I'm watching, eg, Alison Kruse [youtube.com] because it's interesting first-person reporting on a topic which intrigues me.
Obviously others disagree about the value of her material, but I like that I have the choice to evaluate it for myself, and this would not be possible without Youtube as an open upload or 'feed' site.So there must be lots of first-person reporting we can feed into an open-source news grid.
The problem is how to somehow establish bona fides and how to fund the indepth analysis which SOME newspapers give.Unfortunately, the Iraq War really was the last nail in the coffin of traditional media for me.
Almost to a man, all the big US papers lined up behind an utterly manipulated agenda.
The best news source I found in early 2003 was the libertarian news aggregator site antiwar.com, which ferreted out all the international and local-paper stories which didn't filter up to the NYT or Washington Post front page.Scoop.co.nz is another example of a new-media news play.
One of their distinctives is that they show live unfiltered political party announcements rather than just doing commentary - and I think this is the direction that online news has to go.
Stop trying to be a one-way "processed news product" where you package news plus commentary in one chunk, and split the two out.
Then realise that your readers can also become your reporters if you give them a little trust.
It's a hard thing to realise that "value-added content" actually means "value-subtracted" in many cases, but it's true.There are attribution and funding systems which still need to emerge.
But the OSS model is already working for news, in the social network grid, where 'what my friends are doing' IS always relevant local news to someone.
If you have enough micro-news sources then analysis can emerge on top of that, and if we each do a little bit of feed and analysis we can potentially build a much more robust news ecosystem than one dominated by big heroic superstars - who may not turn out to be all that superheroic - certainly Iraq proved that the superstars had feet of clay, not an Edward Morrow among them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834464</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>andrewirwin</author>
	<datestamp>1264012500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you mean salon.com?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you mean salon.com ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you mean salon.com?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833602</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1264009260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information. It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook.</p></div></blockquote><p>Open to it? Sure. Just like I am open to getting stuff WITHOUt paying for the synthesis of information.<br>Sure, competition is hard. We will see in the end what happens and it might be some third option we have not even yet thought about.<br>I will be open for anything as long as you are also open to alternatives, which might mean that your income will go away as it happens now. Just like Gutenberg put a lot of people out of a job, now Internet might do the same. Only in a few years will we see what the result was.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information .
It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook.Open to it ?
Sure. Just like I am open to getting stuff WITHOUt paying for the synthesis of information.Sure , competition is hard .
We will see in the end what happens and it might be some third option we have not even yet thought about.I will be open for anything as long as you are also open to alternatives , which might mean that your income will go away as it happens now .
Just like Gutenberg put a lot of people out of a job , now Internet might do the same .
Only in a few years will we see what the result was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information.
It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook.Open to it?
Sure. Just like I am open to getting stuff WITHOUt paying for the synthesis of information.Sure, competition is hard.
We will see in the end what happens and it might be some third option we have not even yet thought about.I will be open for anything as long as you are also open to alternatives, which might mean that your income will go away as it happens now.
Just like Gutenberg put a lot of people out of a job, now Internet might do the same.
Only in a few years will we see what the result was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833648</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1264009500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The internet is not the main problem for newspapers(in terms of news). Newspapers have forgotten what they are good at. Internet news isn't much different from the morning, afternoon, and nightly news on T.V. You can get quick headlines, and LOTS of opinions easily. What newspapers are good for is investigative journalism. But they don't DO that anymore. They try and cater to specific crowds like the news channels and blogs.
<br> <br>
The New York Times is a decent paper in a time of mediocre papers. It would still be considered far too run by its advertising and getting more quick fluff stories than it's 1970's version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is not the main problem for newspapers ( in terms of news ) .
Newspapers have forgotten what they are good at .
Internet news is n't much different from the morning , afternoon , and nightly news on T.V .
You can get quick headlines , and LOTS of opinions easily .
What newspapers are good for is investigative journalism .
But they do n't DO that anymore .
They try and cater to specific crowds like the news channels and blogs .
The New York Times is a decent paper in a time of mediocre papers .
It would still be considered far too run by its advertising and getting more quick fluff stories than it 's 1970 's version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is not the main problem for newspapers(in terms of news).
Newspapers have forgotten what they are good at.
Internet news isn't much different from the morning, afternoon, and nightly news on T.V.
You can get quick headlines, and LOTS of opinions easily.
What newspapers are good for is investigative journalism.
But they don't DO that anymore.
They try and cater to specific crowds like the news channels and blogs.
The New York Times is a decent paper in a time of mediocre papers.
It would still be considered far too run by its advertising and getting more quick fluff stories than it's 1970's version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833470</id>
	<title>YES! fP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264008780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>at deatH's door Fear the reaper all know we want. to this. For</htmltext>
<tokenext>at deatH 's door Fear the reaper all know we want .
to this .
For</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at deatH's door Fear the reaper all know we want.
to this.
For</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833616</id>
	<title>Re:Buggy Whips</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1264009320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some of us still enjoy buying a paper paper.<br><br>1. The internet is too slow at lunchtimes, what with everyone and their dog buying package holidays at the moment.<br><br>2. I can't take this PC to Trap 1, but the paper opens nicely.<br><br>3. I sit staring at this bloody LCD all day, getting away from it for 30 minutes is bliss.<br><br>4. I'd get the sack for look at Page 3 tits on the internet.<br><br>5. People borrow my paper and chat about the content afterwards. It's nice. Nicer than a link in an email.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of us still enjoy buying a paper paper.1 .
The internet is too slow at lunchtimes , what with everyone and their dog buying package holidays at the moment.2 .
I ca n't take this PC to Trap 1 , but the paper opens nicely.3 .
I sit staring at this bloody LCD all day , getting away from it for 30 minutes is bliss.4 .
I 'd get the sack for look at Page 3 tits on the internet.5 .
People borrow my paper and chat about the content afterwards .
It 's nice .
Nicer than a link in an email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of us still enjoy buying a paper paper.1.
The internet is too slow at lunchtimes, what with everyone and their dog buying package holidays at the moment.2.
I can't take this PC to Trap 1, but the paper opens nicely.3.
I sit staring at this bloody LCD all day, getting away from it for 30 minutes is bliss.4.
I'd get the sack for look at Page 3 tits on the internet.5.
People borrow my paper and chat about the content afterwards.
It's nice.
Nicer than a link in an email.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833942</id>
	<title>I read from social networks and aggregators.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1264010640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get most of my online "news" from news aggregators and social websites where friends have provided links to things to read.</p><p>If sites start charging for content, they will drop off of the aggregators and my friends will stop posting links because even if they can read them they will know that their friends probably don't.  Thus the pay sites will drop out of my visibility.</p><p>If it is important enough, someone will copy-and-paste it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get most of my online " news " from news aggregators and social websites where friends have provided links to things to read.If sites start charging for content , they will drop off of the aggregators and my friends will stop posting links because even if they can read them they will know that their friends probably do n't .
Thus the pay sites will drop out of my visibility.If it is important enough , someone will copy-and-paste it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get most of my online "news" from news aggregators and social websites where friends have provided links to things to read.If sites start charging for content, they will drop off of the aggregators and my friends will stop posting links because even if they can read them they will know that their friends probably don't.
Thus the pay sites will drop out of my visibility.If it is important enough, someone will copy-and-paste it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834840</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264014240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An excellent bit of writing.  I think it won't be a popular view here, but it raises many valid points.

</p><p>
People tend to focus on the distribution being cheap/free (and it's not - but the cost is spread out to such a level that it's transparent to anyone not hosting content themselves) that they seem to forget that creating actual, original content that people want to see/listen to/read takes time and effort.  In order for the Michelangelos, Dickinsons, Whitmans, FF Coppolas, Led Zeppelins and Mozarts... even the Steven Kings* and Nora Roberts* of the world to do what they do, they need to be able to make a living from it.  Perhaps even to make a damned good living from it, for a relative few.
</p><p>
No matter what your ideology would have you believe, the amount of money you can make giving things away for free is very small indeed (negative for most people).  And without full-time time and dedication, many of the people most capable of creating the content that others feel entitled to have for free simply won't have the opportunity to create it.
</p><p>
Of course there are exceptions - many greats have done creative works in their spare time and saw little if any return -- yet they continue on.  (Usually ending in an alcohol- or drug-sodden death<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  But the number of those in comparison to both " greats"  and "mediocre talent that people love anyway"  who actually make a living doing what they do -- who could not do it otherwise -- is vanishingly small.

</p><p>* Examples chosen specifically because they're not universally identified as greats -- and yet people keep buying what they create in droves.
</p><p>
Alright, I've got my flame resistant suit on.  Bring it on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An excellent bit of writing .
I think it wo n't be a popular view here , but it raises many valid points .
People tend to focus on the distribution being cheap/free ( and it 's not - but the cost is spread out to such a level that it 's transparent to anyone not hosting content themselves ) that they seem to forget that creating actual , original content that people want to see/listen to/read takes time and effort .
In order for the Michelangelos , Dickinsons , Whitmans , FF Coppolas , Led Zeppelins and Mozarts... even the Steven Kings * and Nora Roberts * of the world to do what they do , they need to be able to make a living from it .
Perhaps even to make a damned good living from it , for a relative few .
No matter what your ideology would have you believe , the amount of money you can make giving things away for free is very small indeed ( negative for most people ) .
And without full-time time and dedication , many of the people most capable of creating the content that others feel entitled to have for free simply wo n't have the opportunity to create it .
Of course there are exceptions - many greats have done creative works in their spare time and saw little if any return -- yet they continue on .
( Usually ending in an alcohol- or drug-sodden death ; ) But the number of those in comparison to both " greats " and " mediocre talent that people love anyway " who actually make a living doing what they do -- who could not do it otherwise -- is vanishingly small .
* Examples chosen specifically because they 're not universally identified as greats -- and yet people keep buying what they create in droves .
Alright , I 've got my flame resistant suit on .
Bring it on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An excellent bit of writing.
I think it won't be a popular view here, but it raises many valid points.
People tend to focus on the distribution being cheap/free (and it's not - but the cost is spread out to such a level that it's transparent to anyone not hosting content themselves) that they seem to forget that creating actual, original content that people want to see/listen to/read takes time and effort.
In order for the Michelangelos, Dickinsons, Whitmans, FF Coppolas, Led Zeppelins and Mozarts... even the Steven Kings* and Nora Roberts* of the world to do what they do, they need to be able to make a living from it.
Perhaps even to make a damned good living from it, for a relative few.
No matter what your ideology would have you believe, the amount of money you can make giving things away for free is very small indeed (negative for most people).
And without full-time time and dedication, many of the people most capable of creating the content that others feel entitled to have for free simply won't have the opportunity to create it.
Of course there are exceptions - many greats have done creative works in their spare time and saw little if any return -- yet they continue on.
(Usually ending in an alcohol- or drug-sodden death ;)  But the number of those in comparison to both " greats"  and "mediocre talent that people love anyway"  who actually make a living doing what they do -- who could not do it otherwise -- is vanishingly small.
* Examples chosen specifically because they're not universally identified as greats -- and yet people keep buying what they create in droves.
Alright, I've got my flame resistant suit on.
Bring it on...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833638</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>AB\_Rhialto</author>
	<datestamp>1264009440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is the great information age challenge; how do content producers (and I am not necessarily talking about the publishers here but potentially the 'artist' themselves - more on that in a following paragraph) receive compensation and how do I as a consumer support them.  This is not a new topic since single sign on and micro-payments have been a topic discussed for quite a few years.</p><p>Personally I would like to support the creators of content, however, bulk payment (i.e. monthly subscriptions) just doesn't work in the newly connected world where potentially anyone can be a content producer (how many monthly subscriptions would I have to have, and how economical would that be).  If I could pay per article so that I could support the newspaper or the blogger, then the content providers have incentive to continue and I get the greatest number of possible sources for news and entertainment (currently, advertising is the only way most of these content producers get paid today and that is definitely not ideal on multiple levels).</p><p>There is another industry that is undergoing a similar transformative process and that is music.  How long until the artists can skip the labels entirely (for some, that day is already here, for others it is very close).  If we consider a song to be somewhat equivalent to an article, then there is an existing model out there that, with modifications, can support the information industry.</p><p>I have a feeling that Apple and their iTunes ecosystem might just be headed down that path, since they provide a type of single sign-on (my iTunes account) and they provide multiple forms of media (and if we believe the rumors, books and other information media is coming soon).  They would be in a position to create a micro-payment environment for all content producers to get paid directly with out the reliance on advertising.</p><p>Now, I don't actually believe iTunes will become the new internet, just pointing out that it can be used as something of a template for the greater internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is the great information age challenge ; how do content producers ( and I am not necessarily talking about the publishers here but potentially the 'artist ' themselves - more on that in a following paragraph ) receive compensation and how do I as a consumer support them .
This is not a new topic since single sign on and micro-payments have been a topic discussed for quite a few years.Personally I would like to support the creators of content , however , bulk payment ( i.e .
monthly subscriptions ) just does n't work in the newly connected world where potentially anyone can be a content producer ( how many monthly subscriptions would I have to have , and how economical would that be ) .
If I could pay per article so that I could support the newspaper or the blogger , then the content providers have incentive to continue and I get the greatest number of possible sources for news and entertainment ( currently , advertising is the only way most of these content producers get paid today and that is definitely not ideal on multiple levels ) .There is another industry that is undergoing a similar transformative process and that is music .
How long until the artists can skip the labels entirely ( for some , that day is already here , for others it is very close ) .
If we consider a song to be somewhat equivalent to an article , then there is an existing model out there that , with modifications , can support the information industry.I have a feeling that Apple and their iTunes ecosystem might just be headed down that path , since they provide a type of single sign-on ( my iTunes account ) and they provide multiple forms of media ( and if we believe the rumors , books and other information media is coming soon ) .
They would be in a position to create a micro-payment environment for all content producers to get paid directly with out the reliance on advertising.Now , I do n't actually believe iTunes will become the new internet , just pointing out that it can be used as something of a template for the greater internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is the great information age challenge; how do content producers (and I am not necessarily talking about the publishers here but potentially the 'artist' themselves - more on that in a following paragraph) receive compensation and how do I as a consumer support them.
This is not a new topic since single sign on and micro-payments have been a topic discussed for quite a few years.Personally I would like to support the creators of content, however, bulk payment (i.e.
monthly subscriptions) just doesn't work in the newly connected world where potentially anyone can be a content producer (how many monthly subscriptions would I have to have, and how economical would that be).
If I could pay per article so that I could support the newspaper or the blogger, then the content providers have incentive to continue and I get the greatest number of possible sources for news and entertainment (currently, advertising is the only way most of these content producers get paid today and that is definitely not ideal on multiple levels).There is another industry that is undergoing a similar transformative process and that is music.
How long until the artists can skip the labels entirely (for some, that day is already here, for others it is very close).
If we consider a song to be somewhat equivalent to an article, then there is an existing model out there that, with modifications, can support the information industry.I have a feeling that Apple and their iTunes ecosystem might just be headed down that path, since they provide a type of single sign-on (my iTunes account) and they provide multiple forms of media (and if we believe the rumors, books and other information media is coming soon).
They would be in a position to create a micro-payment environment for all content producers to get paid directly with out the reliance on advertising.Now, I don't actually believe iTunes will become the new internet, just pointing out that it can be used as something of a template for the greater internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835362</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1264016160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if we are credited back in full for any article that we find to have a typo, use of the wrong word (to instead of too), missing a word, or (my personal favorite) repeats all or part of a sentence.

I would be willing to (modestly) pay for professional content - provided it was proofread by an actual meatspace editor instead of merely run through a goddam spellchecker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if we are credited back in full for any article that we find to have a typo , use of the wrong word ( to instead of too ) , missing a word , or ( my personal favorite ) repeats all or part of a sentence .
I would be willing to ( modestly ) pay for professional content - provided it was proofread by an actual meatspace editor instead of merely run through a goddam spellchecker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if we are credited back in full for any article that we find to have a typo, use of the wrong word (to instead of too), missing a word, or (my personal favorite) repeats all or part of a sentence.
I would be willing to (modestly) pay for professional content - provided it was proofread by an actual meatspace editor instead of merely run through a goddam spellchecker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836160</id>
	<title>Worth it</title>
	<author>nlaporte</author>
	<datestamp>1264019280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I for one would be willing to pay $10-20/month to read the NYT online. I already spend probably an hour a day reading it, and fifteen years ago I'd be paying for daily newspaper delivery at my age anyhow. Good journalism deserves my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I for one would be willing to pay $ 10-20/month to read the NYT online .
I already spend probably an hour a day reading it , and fifteen years ago I 'd be paying for daily newspaper delivery at my age anyhow .
Good journalism deserves my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I for one would be willing to pay $10-20/month to read the NYT online.
I already spend probably an hour a day reading it, and fifteen years ago I'd be paying for daily newspaper delivery at my age anyhow.
Good journalism deserves my money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834594</id>
	<title>Re:A word of thanks and a request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264013160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I'm sympathetic to your view.  I *want* quality news sources to survive, that takes money, and, thus, I want to encourage them by throwing some money their way.  I still subscribe to regular paper news at home, for example.  We're just on the threshold of having cheap dedicated e-book / wall display devices that could have the equivalent of a newspaper pushed to them electronically every day.  It would be nice to have something that emulates the traditional newspaper-reading routine, but in electronic form.  That's something I might subscribe to, but they're still a few years off.</p><p>The thing is, I have <i>no fricking clue</i> how to help newspapers and the creators of their content survive in the on-line world right now.  None.  And I'm sure you'll find the same sentiment to be widespread here and among other technology forums.  What's the solution to getting them the revenue they need to survive?  There are ideas, but they usually fall short.</p><p>I could say they need to ramp up their on-line advertising content, but they're already doing that and apparently it isn't enough.  I could say that they need to understand that information moves around quickly and freely in the on-line world, such that ordinary people living in a country and <i>directly party to the news of the day</i> can become informal "reporters" (witness recent events in Iran and Haiti, for example).  Everybody can, in some sense, become an international reporter, thus, maybe we need fewer of the "professional" ones, and the days when they were always primary sources will inevitably wane as a result (maybe reporters need to become more like "aggregators" themselves, by developing trustworthy local source networks, rather than going on expensive trips).  We still need historical perspective, we still need criticism, we still need reporters to dig for stories, and we especially need them to help the public hold our politicians in democratic countries accountable, so we still need real reporters too, but the ecosystem has been turned upside-down.  Either they are going to adapt to it or they are going to become extinct or nearly so.  The world has changed.</p><p>The way forward is not to beg indexers for a cut of their indexing to news stories (the Murdoch approach).  That makes no more sense than publishers charging librarians for indexing the books on the shelves.  It also makes no sense to insist on payment for every scrap of information.  Information traditionally flows freely in the news industry as often as it does through paid channels.  "As reported by so-and-so" is routine, and it isn't "stealing", as long as the credit line is there (and most people do the right thing and provide an actual link to the originating article).  As I said, I don't have a solution, but I sure as heck know that some of the approaches are ridiculously wrong.  Setting up a paywall is, to me, a risky and potentially fatal "solution".  <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/04/1658230/Saloncom-Editor-Looks-Back-At-Paywalls" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">This has been demonstrated before</a> [slashdot.org].  It's hubris to think that readers like your stuff *so* much that they will one day cough up money for something they until recently got for free.  For example, would avid readers of slashdot pay money to keep reading it?  I sure wouldn't.  I suspect the readership here would drop to 10\% of it's regular traffic overnight (might be worth an experiment on April 1st -- it would be even funnier if all the major tech sites "went paywall" for the day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)).</p><p>A paywall might be worth a try in desperation, but once you start down that road it will be hard to fix if you discover it cuts away advertising dollars and readers faster than the paid subscriptions make up for.  I'm not optimistic it would add up.</p><p>In such a comment I'm not dismissing the news media as irrelevant, I'm saying "DANGER!"  Likewise, I think most technology commentators are not saying "Give up", they're saying to newspapers "Get a clue: what you're suggesting probably won't work."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I 'm sympathetic to your view .
I * want * quality news sources to survive , that takes money , and , thus , I want to encourage them by throwing some money their way .
I still subscribe to regular paper news at home , for example .
We 're just on the threshold of having cheap dedicated e-book / wall display devices that could have the equivalent of a newspaper pushed to them electronically every day .
It would be nice to have something that emulates the traditional newspaper-reading routine , but in electronic form .
That 's something I might subscribe to , but they 're still a few years off.The thing is , I have no fricking clue how to help newspapers and the creators of their content survive in the on-line world right now .
None. And I 'm sure you 'll find the same sentiment to be widespread here and among other technology forums .
What 's the solution to getting them the revenue they need to survive ?
There are ideas , but they usually fall short.I could say they need to ramp up their on-line advertising content , but they 're already doing that and apparently it is n't enough .
I could say that they need to understand that information moves around quickly and freely in the on-line world , such that ordinary people living in a country and directly party to the news of the day can become informal " reporters " ( witness recent events in Iran and Haiti , for example ) .
Everybody can , in some sense , become an international reporter , thus , maybe we need fewer of the " professional " ones , and the days when they were always primary sources will inevitably wane as a result ( maybe reporters need to become more like " aggregators " themselves , by developing trustworthy local source networks , rather than going on expensive trips ) .
We still need historical perspective , we still need criticism , we still need reporters to dig for stories , and we especially need them to help the public hold our politicians in democratic countries accountable , so we still need real reporters too , but the ecosystem has been turned upside-down .
Either they are going to adapt to it or they are going to become extinct or nearly so .
The world has changed.The way forward is not to beg indexers for a cut of their indexing to news stories ( the Murdoch approach ) .
That makes no more sense than publishers charging librarians for indexing the books on the shelves .
It also makes no sense to insist on payment for every scrap of information .
Information traditionally flows freely in the news industry as often as it does through paid channels .
" As reported by so-and-so " is routine , and it is n't " stealing " , as long as the credit line is there ( and most people do the right thing and provide an actual link to the originating article ) .
As I said , I do n't have a solution , but I sure as heck know that some of the approaches are ridiculously wrong .
Setting up a paywall is , to me , a risky and potentially fatal " solution " .
This has been demonstrated before [ slashdot.org ] .
It 's hubris to think that readers like your stuff * so * much that they will one day cough up money for something they until recently got for free .
For example , would avid readers of slashdot pay money to keep reading it ?
I sure would n't .
I suspect the readership here would drop to 10 \ % of it 's regular traffic overnight ( might be worth an experiment on April 1st -- it would be even funnier if all the major tech sites " went paywall " for the day : - ) ) .A paywall might be worth a try in desperation , but once you start down that road it will be hard to fix if you discover it cuts away advertising dollars and readers faster than the paid subscriptions make up for .
I 'm not optimistic it would add up.In such a comment I 'm not dismissing the news media as irrelevant , I 'm saying " DANGER !
" Likewise , I think most technology commentators are not saying " Give up " , they 're saying to newspapers " Get a clue : what you 're suggesting probably wo n't work .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I'm sympathetic to your view.
I *want* quality news sources to survive, that takes money, and, thus, I want to encourage them by throwing some money their way.
I still subscribe to regular paper news at home, for example.
We're just on the threshold of having cheap dedicated e-book / wall display devices that could have the equivalent of a newspaper pushed to them electronically every day.
It would be nice to have something that emulates the traditional newspaper-reading routine, but in electronic form.
That's something I might subscribe to, but they're still a few years off.The thing is, I have no fricking clue how to help newspapers and the creators of their content survive in the on-line world right now.
None.  And I'm sure you'll find the same sentiment to be widespread here and among other technology forums.
What's the solution to getting them the revenue they need to survive?
There are ideas, but they usually fall short.I could say they need to ramp up their on-line advertising content, but they're already doing that and apparently it isn't enough.
I could say that they need to understand that information moves around quickly and freely in the on-line world, such that ordinary people living in a country and directly party to the news of the day can become informal "reporters" (witness recent events in Iran and Haiti, for example).
Everybody can, in some sense, become an international reporter, thus, maybe we need fewer of the "professional" ones, and the days when they were always primary sources will inevitably wane as a result (maybe reporters need to become more like "aggregators" themselves, by developing trustworthy local source networks, rather than going on expensive trips).
We still need historical perspective, we still need criticism, we still need reporters to dig for stories, and we especially need them to help the public hold our politicians in democratic countries accountable, so we still need real reporters too, but the ecosystem has been turned upside-down.
Either they are going to adapt to it or they are going to become extinct or nearly so.
The world has changed.The way forward is not to beg indexers for a cut of their indexing to news stories (the Murdoch approach).
That makes no more sense than publishers charging librarians for indexing the books on the shelves.
It also makes no sense to insist on payment for every scrap of information.
Information traditionally flows freely in the news industry as often as it does through paid channels.
"As reported by so-and-so" is routine, and it isn't "stealing", as long as the credit line is there (and most people do the right thing and provide an actual link to the originating article).
As I said, I don't have a solution, but I sure as heck know that some of the approaches are ridiculously wrong.
Setting up a paywall is, to me, a risky and potentially fatal "solution".
This has been demonstrated before [slashdot.org].
It's hubris to think that readers like your stuff *so* much that they will one day cough up money for something they until recently got for free.
For example, would avid readers of slashdot pay money to keep reading it?
I sure wouldn't.
I suspect the readership here would drop to 10\% of it's regular traffic overnight (might be worth an experiment on April 1st -- it would be even funnier if all the major tech sites "went paywall" for the day :-)).A paywall might be worth a try in desperation, but once you start down that road it will be hard to fix if you discover it cuts away advertising dollars and readers faster than the paid subscriptions make up for.
I'm not optimistic it would add up.In such a comment I'm not dismissing the news media as irrelevant, I'm saying "DANGER!
"  Likewise, I think most technology commentators are not saying "Give up", they're saying to newspapers "Get a clue: what you're suggesting probably won't work.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833026</id>
	<title>About time...</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1264007400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's different for a bigger news outlet like NYT, but I'd say it's about time.  Dozens of News paper printing companies have long and done this many years ago (including Wall Street Journal many years back) and even the podunk news outlets in my midwest state.  Anymore, I can't even read local news around here unless I pay for it online or catch it on the 6 o'clock or 10 o'clock news.  I've long grown tired of dipshit delivery kids throwing my paper in a snow bank, at the end of my 30ft driveway or leaving the paper on my doorstep without a plastic bag in the rain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's different for a bigger news outlet like NYT , but I 'd say it 's about time .
Dozens of News paper printing companies have long and done this many years ago ( including Wall Street Journal many years back ) and even the podunk news outlets in my midwest state .
Anymore , I ca n't even read local news around here unless I pay for it online or catch it on the 6 o'clock or 10 o'clock news .
I 've long grown tired of dipshit delivery kids throwing my paper in a snow bank , at the end of my 30ft driveway or leaving the paper on my doorstep without a plastic bag in the rain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's different for a bigger news outlet like NYT, but I'd say it's about time.
Dozens of News paper printing companies have long and done this many years ago (including Wall Street Journal many years back) and even the podunk news outlets in my midwest state.
Anymore, I can't even read local news around here unless I pay for it online or catch it on the 6 o'clock or 10 o'clock news.
I've long grown tired of dipshit delivery kids throwing my paper in a snow bank, at the end of my 30ft driveway or leaving the paper on my doorstep without a plastic bag in the rain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833076</id>
	<title>Newsworthy</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1264007580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the Times ever actually contain timely news articles that slashdot would need to link to?  I can't remember the last time I even looked on their site</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the Times ever actually contain timely news articles that slashdot would need to link to ?
I ca n't remember the last time I even looked on their site</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the Times ever actually contain timely news articles that slashdot would need to link to?
I can't remember the last time I even looked on their site</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832918</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>cronco</author>
	<datestamp>1264007040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True that. And advertisement-backed journalism doesn't really smell all that nice. The information market is still a market, and people still seem to forget.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True that .
And advertisement-backed journalism does n't really smell all that nice .
The information market is still a market , and people still seem to forget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True that.
And advertisement-backed journalism doesn't really smell all that nice.
The information market is still a market, and people still seem to forget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833016</id>
	<title>For Sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was just confirmed that in 2012, the NYTimes will be out of business and for sale!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was just confirmed that in 2012 , the NYTimes will be out of business and for sale !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was just confirmed that in 2012, the NYTimes will be out of business and for sale!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834738</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>infinite9</author>
	<datestamp>1264013820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</i> </p><p>Get your news from Patriot News: the only news source approved by the Ministry of Information!  Beware of other news sources!  They encourage terrorism and subversion!  If you see your neighbor reading unapproved news, report them to the Ministry of Information at once!  It's for their own good and the good of our nation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90 \ % of the print papers folding .
Get your news from Patriot News : the only news source approved by the Ministry of Information !
Beware of other news sources !
They encourage terrorism and subversion !
If you see your neighbor reading unapproved news , report them to the Ministry of Information at once !
It 's for their own good and the good of our nation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.
Get your news from Patriot News: the only news source approved by the Ministry of Information!
Beware of other news sources!
They encourage terrorism and subversion!
If you see your neighbor reading unapproved news, report them to the Ministry of Information at once!
It's for their own good and the good of our nation!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834152</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>Ubi\_NL</author>
	<datestamp>1264011360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is that the Times main revenue is the paper edition, whereas Slate mainly existed as a website. As mentioned above, the Times doesn't make any money from the site, but in fact loses money as it makes their paper edition worthless. So for them less online popularity may actually increase revenue.</p><p>Ubi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is that the Times main revenue is the paper edition , whereas Slate mainly existed as a website .
As mentioned above , the Times does n't make any money from the site , but in fact loses money as it makes their paper edition worthless .
So for them less online popularity may actually increase revenue.Ubi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is that the Times main revenue is the paper edition, whereas Slate mainly existed as a website.
As mentioned above, the Times doesn't make any money from the site, but in fact loses money as it makes their paper edition worthless.
So for them less online popularity may actually increase revenue.Ubi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836884</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1263979200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't get it there is still room for local news it's just the market has changed dramatically and they have not adjusted their business to the new reality. I suspect that it is entirely possibly to have an online only local news site that does real journalism supported by online ad revenue only. If HuffPo can do it on a national level it's very likely it's possible on a local level.</p><p>I think that's what the future is more niche content creators with unique content going in to the aggregated pool. This of course means new realities for the "papers". They can not be as big as they were they have to be much much smaller to make it work.However they don't need for example to report on national news at all as it is a complete duplication at this point. It's pretty well covered by CNN. MSNBC, BBC, NPR... They basically don't need a physical office they should save costs by having reporters and editors working from home. They don't need presses, trucks, printers, distributors, vending machines etc... This is all old world thinking it's time to move on. They need good journalists, columnists, editors and web servers and that's where there money should be spent.</p><p>Focus on local and state news and editorial exclusively and online ad revenue will support it just fine. I think the bottom line is from a growth and revenue perspective they don't want this new reality even though it is the new reality. They basically don't like the scenario they find themselves in and refuse to make the changes. So they are going to fight it all the way to bankruptcy in the case of many local papers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't get it there is still room for local news it 's just the market has changed dramatically and they have not adjusted their business to the new reality .
I suspect that it is entirely possibly to have an online only local news site that does real journalism supported by online ad revenue only .
If HuffPo can do it on a national level it 's very likely it 's possible on a local level.I think that 's what the future is more niche content creators with unique content going in to the aggregated pool .
This of course means new realities for the " papers " .
They can not be as big as they were they have to be much much smaller to make it work.However they do n't need for example to report on national news at all as it is a complete duplication at this point .
It 's pretty well covered by CNN .
MSNBC , BBC , NPR... They basically do n't need a physical office they should save costs by having reporters and editors working from home .
They do n't need presses , trucks , printers , distributors , vending machines etc... This is all old world thinking it 's time to move on .
They need good journalists , columnists , editors and web servers and that 's where there money should be spent.Focus on local and state news and editorial exclusively and online ad revenue will support it just fine .
I think the bottom line is from a growth and revenue perspective they do n't want this new reality even though it is the new reality .
They basically do n't like the scenario they find themselves in and refuse to make the changes .
So they are going to fight it all the way to bankruptcy in the case of many local papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't get it there is still room for local news it's just the market has changed dramatically and they have not adjusted their business to the new reality.
I suspect that it is entirely possibly to have an online only local news site that does real journalism supported by online ad revenue only.
If HuffPo can do it on a national level it's very likely it's possible on a local level.I think that's what the future is more niche content creators with unique content going in to the aggregated pool.
This of course means new realities for the "papers".
They can not be as big as they were they have to be much much smaller to make it work.However they don't need for example to report on national news at all as it is a complete duplication at this point.
It's pretty well covered by CNN.
MSNBC, BBC, NPR... They basically don't need a physical office they should save costs by having reporters and editors working from home.
They don't need presses, trucks, printers, distributors, vending machines etc... This is all old world thinking it's time to move on.
They need good journalists, columnists, editors and web servers and that's where there money should be spent.Focus on local and state news and editorial exclusively and online ad revenue will support it just fine.
I think the bottom line is from a growth and revenue perspective they don't want this new reality even though it is the new reality.
They basically don't like the scenario they find themselves in and refuse to make the changes.
So they are going to fight it all the way to bankruptcy in the case of many local papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838174</id>
	<title>Re:Part of the blame lies with Google...</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1263984180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just put a fucking robots.txt file in and Google will respect it. Murdoch's content would disappear within hours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just put a fucking robots.txt file in and Google will respect it .
Murdoch 's content would disappear within hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just put a fucking robots.txt file in and Google will respect it.
Murdoch's content would disappear within hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834218</id>
	<title>What about AP?</title>
	<author>Lazlo Woodbine</author>
	<datestamp>1264011600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As far as I know you need to give all your content to AP to be able to use the AP wire feed. Doesn't this mean that content from NYT will show up as wire feed on the sites of all other AP members? And if so, doesn't this mean that they pretty much have to withdraw from AP to keep their content to themselves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as I know you need to give all your content to AP to be able to use the AP wire feed .
Does n't this mean that content from NYT will show up as wire feed on the sites of all other AP members ?
And if so , does n't this mean that they pretty much have to withdraw from AP to keep their content to themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as I know you need to give all your content to AP to be able to use the AP wire feed.
Doesn't this mean that content from NYT will show up as wire feed on the sites of all other AP members?
And if so, doesn't this mean that they pretty much have to withdraw from AP to keep their content to themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832960</id>
	<title>I was considering a subscription</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1264007160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York. The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent. NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're  a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player , it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York .
The BBC does truly global coverage , and there 's no American equivalent .
NYT is the closest we have , but they 're going to have to do more to prove that they 're a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the big issue with the NYT is that despite being a global player, it still has this New York focus that makes it less useful for those of us not in New York.
The BBC does truly global coverage, and there's no American equivalent.
NYT is the closest we have, but they're going to have to do more to prove that they're  a global player and not just a regional paper with really good national and international coverage before I pull out my wallet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835020</id>
	<title>In related news...</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1264015020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Junior J. Junior III announced today that he intends to stop reading content from the New York Times in 2011.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Junior J. Junior III announced today that he intends to stop reading content from the New York Times in 2011 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Junior J. Junior III announced today that he intends to stop reading content from the New York Times in 2011.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832924</id>
	<title>Bug Me Not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't care that much if and absolutely positively have to read a story in the Times. I've got a button for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't care that much if and absolutely positively have to read a story in the Times .
I 've got a button for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't care that much if and absolutely positively have to read a story in the Times.
I've got a button for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835066</id>
	<title>Re:It won't work, and it is unlikely to be tried..</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264015140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
.   Advertisements have only been an attempt to carry the newspaper model (low or free in price, high advert content ) over to the Internet.  There is a massive industry built around this -- this selling back and forth of impressions and click-throughs that <i>add absolutely no value for anybody except the middle man </i>.
</p><p>
Even the whole debacle about data privacy is an extension of this.  People will pay tons of money to know what you do -- <i>so that they can advertise to you in a way that makes you more likely to purchase</i>.
</p><p>
Personally, I much prefer a company with a solid business plan - selling a product that has value (original, well-written content) in exchange for actual money.  Not in exchange for a chance that I might give my attention, money or information to a third party brokered via a fourth party and provided through the first party's content delivery mechanism.
</p><p>
I think as time goes on, more and more people will be willing to pay a reasonable price in order to escape the massive caterwauling cacophony that comprises most of the free web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Advertisements have only been an attempt to carry the newspaper model ( low or free in price , high advert content ) over to the Internet .
There is a massive industry built around this -- this selling back and forth of impressions and click-throughs that add absolutely no value for anybody except the middle man .
Even the whole debacle about data privacy is an extension of this .
People will pay tons of money to know what you do -- so that they can advertise to you in a way that makes you more likely to purchase .
Personally , I much prefer a company with a solid business plan - selling a product that has value ( original , well-written content ) in exchange for actual money .
Not in exchange for a chance that I might give my attention , money or information to a third party brokered via a fourth party and provided through the first party 's content delivery mechanism .
I think as time goes on , more and more people will be willing to pay a reasonable price in order to escape the massive caterwauling cacophony that comprises most of the free web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
.
Advertisements have only been an attempt to carry the newspaper model (low or free in price, high advert content ) over to the Internet.
There is a massive industry built around this -- this selling back and forth of impressions and click-throughs that add absolutely no value for anybody except the middle man .
Even the whole debacle about data privacy is an extension of this.
People will pay tons of money to know what you do -- so that they can advertise to you in a way that makes you more likely to purchase.
Personally, I much prefer a company with a solid business plan - selling a product that has value (original, well-written content) in exchange for actual money.
Not in exchange for a chance that I might give my attention, money or information to a third party brokered via a fourth party and provided through the first party's content delivery mechanism.
I think as time goes on, more and more people will be willing to pay a reasonable price in order to escape the massive caterwauling cacophony that comprises most of the free web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834462</id>
	<title>Re:If I subscribe to paper version?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264012500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the Journal you can select three options, in this order of cost from low to high:<br>1.  Online only<br>2.  Print only<br>3.  Online and print (just a touch more expensive than print).</p><p>Just letting you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Journal you can select three options , in this order of cost from low to high : 1 .
Online only2 .
Print only3 .
Online and print ( just a touch more expensive than print ) .Just letting you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Journal you can select three options, in this order of cost from low to high:1.
Online only2.
Print only3.
Online and print (just a touch more expensive than print).Just letting you know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839420</id>
	<title>Re:The grey lady should look before leaping</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1263989040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story you linked at the <i>Guardian</i> is by Scott Rosenberg, an actual Salon employee who was close to the Salon Premium effort. As a corollary, here is <a href="http://www.ddj.com/architect/184413286" title="ddj.com">an older article</a> [ddj.com] I commissioned from Scott for <i>Web Techniques</i> magazine in 2001, when the Salon paywall was just going up. It includes some technical details, but mostly it's just interesting to see the bookends of the initial optimism and later disillusionment with the effort.</p><p>P.S. Interesting that Scott's lede was, "The Web's great free-for-all is coming to a sudden, sharp end." Not so sudden, I guess, but perhaps even more sharp than expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story you linked at the Guardian is by Scott Rosenberg , an actual Salon employee who was close to the Salon Premium effort .
As a corollary , here is an older article [ ddj.com ] I commissioned from Scott for Web Techniques magazine in 2001 , when the Salon paywall was just going up .
It includes some technical details , but mostly it 's just interesting to see the bookends of the initial optimism and later disillusionment with the effort.P.S .
Interesting that Scott 's lede was , " The Web 's great free-for-all is coming to a sudden , sharp end .
" Not so sudden , I guess , but perhaps even more sharp than expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story you linked at the Guardian is by Scott Rosenberg, an actual Salon employee who was close to the Salon Premium effort.
As a corollary, here is an older article [ddj.com] I commissioned from Scott for Web Techniques magazine in 2001, when the Salon paywall was just going up.
It includes some technical details, but mostly it's just interesting to see the bookends of the initial optimism and later disillusionment with the effort.P.S.
Interesting that Scott's lede was, "The Web's great free-for-all is coming to a sudden, sharp end.
" Not so sudden, I guess, but perhaps even more sharp than expected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938</id>
	<title>Re:Duh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264007100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't work.  They already know this - they've tried it before.  Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.
<p>
"This time it's different!"
</p><p>
Yes, it is.  Much more competition, the Great Recession, high unemployment.  3 more reasons to fail.
</p><p>
The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't work .
They already know this - they 've tried it before .
Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results .
" This time it 's different !
" Yes , it is .
Much more competition , the Great Recession , high unemployment .
3 more reasons to fail .
The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90 \ % of the print papers folding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't work.
They already know this - they've tried it before.
Stupidity is doing the same thing you did before and expecting different results.
"This time it's different!
"

Yes, it is.
Much more competition, the Great Recession, high unemployment.
3 more reasons to fail.
The industry needs massive consolidation - like maybe 90\% of the print papers folding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30841778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30846128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30847948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30837750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30842814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_20_1521218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30847948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30842814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30841778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30846128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834876
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30837750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30839420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30835066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30838174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30836070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_20_1521218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30832876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30833316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_20_1521218.30834462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
