<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_1351229</id>
	<title>Amazon Surrenders To Macmillan On eBook Pricing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265121420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CuteSteveJobs writes with a followup to news we discussed on Saturday of a <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/30/1341235/Amazon-Pulls-Book-Publishers-Listings-Ebook-Wars-Underway">disagreement between Amazon and Macmillan Publishers</a> over ebook pricing: <i>"Amazon has thrown in the towel and announced <a href="http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/biz-tech/amazon-surrenders-to-publisher-over-ebooks-20100201-n8sh.html">it will now sell books at Macmillan's increased prices</a>; up to $14.99 from $9.99. Said Amazon in a statement: 'We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.' Macmillan has sensed Apple's iBooks <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/01/amazon-macmillan-ebooks-apple">opens the way for higher prices</a>. Perhaps the question should be: do we even need publishers like Macmillian? Publishers have long managed to keep their old business model chugging along nicely despite the Internet; Academics are still <a href="http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlypublishing/copyright.pdf">forced to give up copyright</a> (PDF) of their work <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090724/0445155649&amp;op=sharethis">in exchange for publication</a>. Textbook publishers have a history of <a href="http://ulsu.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/how-textbook-publishers-manipulate-costs-for-students/">unethical practices</a> like frequent edition changes, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25fri4.html?ex=1366862400&amp;en=845444868bcf03e9&amp;ei=5124&amp;partner=permalink&amp;exprod=permalink">unjustifiable price increases</a> and <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/26/eveningnews/main585832.shtml">bribing teachers</a>. For that matter, why do the RIAA's members still control the music business? Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CuteSteveJobs writes with a followup to news we discussed on Saturday of a disagreement between Amazon and Macmillan Publishers over ebook pricing : " Amazon has thrown in the towel and announced it will now sell books at Macmillan 's increased prices ; up to $ 14.99 from $ 9.99 .
Said Amazon in a statement : 'We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan 's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles , and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books .
' Macmillan has sensed Apple 's iBooks opens the way for higher prices .
Perhaps the question should be : do we even need publishers like Macmillian ?
Publishers have long managed to keep their old business model chugging along nicely despite the Internet ; Academics are still forced to give up copyright ( PDF ) of their work in exchange for publication .
Textbook publishers have a history of unethical practices like frequent edition changes , unjustifiable price increases and bribing teachers .
For that matter , why do the RIAA 's members still control the music business ?
Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CuteSteveJobs writes with a followup to news we discussed on Saturday of a disagreement between Amazon and Macmillan Publishers over ebook pricing: "Amazon has thrown in the towel and announced it will now sell books at Macmillan's increased prices; up to $14.99 from $9.99.
Said Amazon in a statement: 'We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books.
' Macmillan has sensed Apple's iBooks opens the way for higher prices.
Perhaps the question should be: do we even need publishers like Macmillian?
Publishers have long managed to keep their old business model chugging along nicely despite the Internet; Academics are still forced to give up copyright (PDF) of their work in exchange for publication.
Textbook publishers have a history of unethical practices like frequent edition changes, unjustifiable price increases and bribing teachers.
For that matter, why do the RIAA's members still control the music business?
Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995550</id>
	<title>All I needed to read...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly..."</p></div><p>Yup, that's about all I needed to read to realize the greed and corruption going on here.  And yeah, publishers have been chugging along quite nicely even in this economy, but is that by choice or by force?  I'm FORCED to buy a $140 book for my class this semester to obtain the authorization code to grant me access to the cheesy course website, only to find that the website has the whole damn book is in electronic form.  On top of that, the physical "book" didn't even come bound.  Yes, that's correct, a stack of 200 pages shrink-wrapped and 3-hole punched, what a bargain at $140.</p><p>Hopefully good competition will at least keep e-book prices at a sane level, because I'm getting rather fed up paying as much in book fees as I do tuition.  Since when did paying extortion to publishers become a requirement for a degree?  Just yet another example of their Monopoly, all the way from the publishers to the paper mills who are printing what could easily be left in electronic form.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan 's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly... " Yup , that 's about all I needed to read to realize the greed and corruption going on here .
And yeah , publishers have been chugging along quite nicely even in this economy , but is that by choice or by force ?
I 'm FORCED to buy a $ 140 book for my class this semester to obtain the authorization code to grant me access to the cheesy course website , only to find that the website has the whole damn book is in electronic form .
On top of that , the physical " book " did n't even come bound .
Yes , that 's correct , a stack of 200 pages shrink-wrapped and 3-hole punched , what a bargain at $ 140.Hopefully good competition will at least keep e-book prices at a sane level , because I 'm getting rather fed up paying as much in book fees as I do tuition .
Since when did paying extortion to publishers become a requirement for a degree ?
Just yet another example of their Monopoly , all the way from the publishers to the paper mills who are printing what could easily be left in electronic form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly..."Yup, that's about all I needed to read to realize the greed and corruption going on here.
And yeah, publishers have been chugging along quite nicely even in this economy, but is that by choice or by force?
I'm FORCED to buy a $140 book for my class this semester to obtain the authorization code to grant me access to the cheesy course website, only to find that the website has the whole damn book is in electronic form.
On top of that, the physical "book" didn't even come bound.
Yes, that's correct, a stack of 200 pages shrink-wrapped and 3-hole punched, what a bargain at $140.Hopefully good competition will at least keep e-book prices at a sane level, because I'm getting rather fed up paying as much in book fees as I do tuition.
Since when did paying extortion to publishers become a requirement for a degree?
Just yet another example of their Monopoly, all the way from the publishers to the paper mills who are printing what could easily be left in electronic form.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995192</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're greedy. Even more than with CDs, the bulk of the costs with books are primarily in the printing/distribution model. The writer doesn't get that kind of money per book, I promise you that.</p><p>I think it's only a very short matter of time before independent authors skip the traditional publishing approach altogether. Once a viable digital book format takes off, the only thing they have left is an editing staff, and I'd happily split some of my book profits with a quality editor (they really do help) as opposed to a bunch of worthless executives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're greedy .
Even more than with CDs , the bulk of the costs with books are primarily in the printing/distribution model .
The writer does n't get that kind of money per book , I promise you that.I think it 's only a very short matter of time before independent authors skip the traditional publishing approach altogether .
Once a viable digital book format takes off , the only thing they have left is an editing staff , and I 'd happily split some of my book profits with a quality editor ( they really do help ) as opposed to a bunch of worthless executives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're greedy.
Even more than with CDs, the bulk of the costs with books are primarily in the printing/distribution model.
The writer doesn't get that kind of money per book, I promise you that.I think it's only a very short matter of time before independent authors skip the traditional publishing approach altogether.
Once a viable digital book format takes off, the only thing they have left is an editing staff, and I'd happily split some of my book profits with a quality editor (they really do help) as opposed to a bunch of worthless executives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997750</id>
	<title>Re: No More!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1265134560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, out of interest, what have you created and released into the public domain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , out of interest , what have you created and released into the public domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, out of interest, what have you created and released into the public domain?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995318</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1265126520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you work for free? Why should people - you know, editors, typesetters, designers, copyeditors, etc. - in the publishing industry? And, even if the ebook is a digital translation of the print product, somebody still needs to make that digital translation and check it over to make sure all the i's stayed dotted and t's stayed crossed. Until you're willing to work for free, don't expect other people to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you work for free ?
Why should people - you know , editors , typesetters , designers , copyeditors , etc .
- in the publishing industry ?
And , even if the ebook is a digital translation of the print product , somebody still needs to make that digital translation and check it over to make sure all the i 's stayed dotted and t 's stayed crossed .
Until you 're willing to work for free , do n't expect other people to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you work for free?
Why should people - you know, editors, typesetters, designers, copyeditors, etc.
- in the publishing industry?
And, even if the ebook is a digital translation of the print product, somebody still needs to make that digital translation and check it over to make sure all the i's stayed dotted and t's stayed crossed.
Until you're willing to work for free, don't expect other people to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995818</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>Phyrexicaid</author>
	<datestamp>1265128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>   You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.   They aren't in practically any market, they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.    Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital "convenience" and the competition doesn't sell the same books.</p></div><p>No, I'm pointing out that it doesn't cost them anything to sell another copy of an ebook.  And Amazon is right in one sense, they won't be priced at what the competition is selling at, because there won't be competition for a specific title.

<br>
<br>
Of course, a consumer could always buy a *different* title from a different publisher</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost .
They are n't in practically any market , they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at .
Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital " convenience " and the competition does n't sell the same books.No , I 'm pointing out that it does n't cost them anything to sell another copy of an ebook .
And Amazon is right in one sense , they wo n't be priced at what the competition is selling at , because there wo n't be competition for a specific title .
Of course , a consumer could always buy a * different * title from a different publisher</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.
They aren't in practically any market, they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.
Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital "convenience" and the competition doesn't sell the same books.No, I'm pointing out that it doesn't cost them anything to sell another copy of an ebook.
And Amazon is right in one sense, they won't be priced at what the competition is selling at, because there won't be competition for a specific title.
Of course, a consumer could always buy a *different* title from a different publisher
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1265125740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh that's right, zero.</p></div><p>   You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.   They aren't in practically any market, they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.    Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital "convenience" and the competition doesn't sell the same books.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh that 's right , zero .
You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost .
They are n't in practically any market , they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at .
Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital " convenience " and the competition does n't sell the same books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh that's right, zero.
You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.
They aren't in practically any market, they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.
Fortunately for them consumers are still willing to pay extra for the digital "convenience" and the competition doesn't sell the same books.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996408</id>
	<title>My own personal experience...</title>
	<author>Eric Freyhart</author>
	<datestamp>1265130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I owned a small self-publishing company for 3 years and sold it.  When I started the company I made a firm decision that the company would NOT obtain or transfer copyright ownership from anyone we published for.  I knew there were a few publishers that we competed against that had "questionable" contracts that appeared to transfer copyright ownership and/or enforcement from the creator of the work.  I thought that by using a more honorable business model we could attract writers and offer another method to get works distributed.</p><p>Oh, wow, let me tell you how this industry is...</p><p>My company started almost from day one to be hit with a series of slanders and false statements from a number of "anonomous" sources.  I was put through the grinder, but did manage to build a good reputation with the people we published and distributed for.  I talked to a lot of other people who used various other companies, and got the chance to see some of the contracts that the competition used.  I can tell you that most, if not all, either outright transferred the majority of ownership from the original creator or had terms that were so vague that it would take a team of lawyers to figure it out.</p><p>My biggest wakeup call was when we had to stop printing a series of art books because the artist signed a contract with another company, not for the works WE printed, but for another totally unrelated work.  He didn't see the little part of the contract which gave the company he signed up with TOTAL rights to ALL his works, even those that they had never printed or were never planning to print, created since the day he was born.  WOW!</p><p>When you control the distribution of a product, you can write your own terms to those who need their product sold.  It's as simple as that.  For years the publishing companies controlled all the methods to get books into the stores, and it continues to this day.  Writers often find that they have to either sign on the dotted line or simply forget about ever having their works seen by the public.  I also discovered that a lot of writers and creators had no idea that they had signed away their rights until I pointed out the terms in their contracts.</p><p>I once thought that companies such as Amazon could change the landscape for the independant writer/creator.  But what I have been noticing is that even with Amazon most people are "locked" in to some sort of system that simply will not let go.  A year or so ago I think that even Amazon tried (and may have succeded) into having all works printed through their own company, thereby eliminating small printing companies out of the loop.  It's interesting to see that even Amazon must bend to the will of another company when it comes to distribution pricing.</p><p>And lets not even begin to think about what Google's book scanning system is doing to the copyright landscape.  "Do no evil"?  Bite me on that one.<br>I am glad to be out of the publishing business, and feel greatly sorry for the future generations that will have content locked, forced upon them, distributed through systems they have to participate in, and prices dictated not my market forces but by lack of competition.</p><p>Nuff said.</p><p>Eric Freyhart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I owned a small self-publishing company for 3 years and sold it .
When I started the company I made a firm decision that the company would NOT obtain or transfer copyright ownership from anyone we published for .
I knew there were a few publishers that we competed against that had " questionable " contracts that appeared to transfer copyright ownership and/or enforcement from the creator of the work .
I thought that by using a more honorable business model we could attract writers and offer another method to get works distributed.Oh , wow , let me tell you how this industry is...My company started almost from day one to be hit with a series of slanders and false statements from a number of " anonomous " sources .
I was put through the grinder , but did manage to build a good reputation with the people we published and distributed for .
I talked to a lot of other people who used various other companies , and got the chance to see some of the contracts that the competition used .
I can tell you that most , if not all , either outright transferred the majority of ownership from the original creator or had terms that were so vague that it would take a team of lawyers to figure it out.My biggest wakeup call was when we had to stop printing a series of art books because the artist signed a contract with another company , not for the works WE printed , but for another totally unrelated work .
He did n't see the little part of the contract which gave the company he signed up with TOTAL rights to ALL his works , even those that they had never printed or were never planning to print , created since the day he was born .
WOW ! When you control the distribution of a product , you can write your own terms to those who need their product sold .
It 's as simple as that .
For years the publishing companies controlled all the methods to get books into the stores , and it continues to this day .
Writers often find that they have to either sign on the dotted line or simply forget about ever having their works seen by the public .
I also discovered that a lot of writers and creators had no idea that they had signed away their rights until I pointed out the terms in their contracts.I once thought that companies such as Amazon could change the landscape for the independant writer/creator .
But what I have been noticing is that even with Amazon most people are " locked " in to some sort of system that simply will not let go .
A year or so ago I think that even Amazon tried ( and may have succeded ) into having all works printed through their own company , thereby eliminating small printing companies out of the loop .
It 's interesting to see that even Amazon must bend to the will of another company when it comes to distribution pricing.And lets not even begin to think about what Google 's book scanning system is doing to the copyright landscape .
" Do no evil " ?
Bite me on that one.I am glad to be out of the publishing business , and feel greatly sorry for the future generations that will have content locked , forced upon them , distributed through systems they have to participate in , and prices dictated not my market forces but by lack of competition.Nuff said.Eric Freyhart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I owned a small self-publishing company for 3 years and sold it.
When I started the company I made a firm decision that the company would NOT obtain or transfer copyright ownership from anyone we published for.
I knew there were a few publishers that we competed against that had "questionable" contracts that appeared to transfer copyright ownership and/or enforcement from the creator of the work.
I thought that by using a more honorable business model we could attract writers and offer another method to get works distributed.Oh, wow, let me tell you how this industry is...My company started almost from day one to be hit with a series of slanders and false statements from a number of "anonomous" sources.
I was put through the grinder, but did manage to build a good reputation with the people we published and distributed for.
I talked to a lot of other people who used various other companies, and got the chance to see some of the contracts that the competition used.
I can tell you that most, if not all, either outright transferred the majority of ownership from the original creator or had terms that were so vague that it would take a team of lawyers to figure it out.My biggest wakeup call was when we had to stop printing a series of art books because the artist signed a contract with another company, not for the works WE printed, but for another totally unrelated work.
He didn't see the little part of the contract which gave the company he signed up with TOTAL rights to ALL his works, even those that they had never printed or were never planning to print, created since the day he was born.
WOW!When you control the distribution of a product, you can write your own terms to those who need their product sold.
It's as simple as that.
For years the publishing companies controlled all the methods to get books into the stores, and it continues to this day.
Writers often find that they have to either sign on the dotted line or simply forget about ever having their works seen by the public.
I also discovered that a lot of writers and creators had no idea that they had signed away their rights until I pointed out the terms in their contracts.I once thought that companies such as Amazon could change the landscape for the independant writer/creator.
But what I have been noticing is that even with Amazon most people are "locked" in to some sort of system that simply will not let go.
A year or so ago I think that even Amazon tried (and may have succeded) into having all works printed through their own company, thereby eliminating small printing companies out of the loop.
It's interesting to see that even Amazon must bend to the will of another company when it comes to distribution pricing.And lets not even begin to think about what Google's book scanning system is doing to the copyright landscape.
"Do no evil"?
Bite me on that one.I am glad to be out of the publishing business, and feel greatly sorry for the future generations that will have content locked, forced upon them, distributed through systems they have to participate in, and prices dictated not my market forces but by lack of competition.Nuff said.Eric Freyhart</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452</id>
	<title>unfortunately, recently permitted in the U.S.</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1265127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of vertical price setting was illegal in the U.S. for about 100 years, considered a form of price-fixing under the Sherman Act. Macmillan was free to choose whatever wholesale price they wanted to sell books and ebooks to Amazon for, but once they sold them, they had no control over what retail price Amazon set. Unfortunately, that was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leegin\_Creative\_Leather\_Products,\_Inc.\_v.\_PSKS,\_Inc." title="wikipedia.org">overturned in 2007</a> [wikipedia.org] in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of vertical price setting was illegal in the U.S. for about 100 years , considered a form of price-fixing under the Sherman Act .
Macmillan was free to choose whatever wholesale price they wanted to sell books and ebooks to Amazon for , but once they sold them , they had no control over what retail price Amazon set .
Unfortunately , that was overturned in 2007 [ wikipedia.org ] in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of vertical price setting was illegal in the U.S. for about 100 years, considered a form of price-fixing under the Sherman Act.
Macmillan was free to choose whatever wholesale price they wanted to sell books and ebooks to Amazon for, but once they sold them, they had no control over what retail price Amazon set.
Unfortunately, that was overturned in 2007 [wikipedia.org] in a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000824</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265103540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!?  No.  No no no, and no.</p><p>Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version?  I realize there are costs associated with OCR services, but most writers use computers now anyways.  What gives with the exorbitant prices?</p></div><p>I have bought ebboks for $15 from Baen.com. Because I wanted the book right now, and the Advanced Reader copy is a good way of doing it. It may have tragic production errors waiting to be fixed, but it can come a lot earlier than even the hardcover.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
No. No no no , and no.Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version ?
I realize there are costs associated with OCR services , but most writers use computers now anyways .
What gives with the exorbitant prices ? I have bought ebboks for $ 15 from Baen.com .
Because I wanted the book right now , and the Advanced Reader copy is a good way of doing it .
It may have tragic production errors waiting to be fixed , but it can come a lot earlier than even the hardcover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!?
No.  No no no, and no.Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version?
I realize there are costs associated with OCR services, but most writers use computers now anyways.
What gives with the exorbitant prices?I have bought ebboks for $15 from Baen.com.
Because I wanted the book right now, and the Advanced Reader copy is a good way of doing it.
It may have tragic production errors waiting to be fixed, but it can come a lot earlier than even the hardcover.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the free market works, though, prevailing prices should relate to cost in the long run, since the equilibrium price of a competitive market is cost plus a reasonable profit ("reasonable profit" being the minimum profit needed to keep suppliers from exiting the business).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the free market works , though , prevailing prices should relate to cost in the long run , since the equilibrium price of a competitive market is cost plus a reasonable profit ( " reasonable profit " being the minimum profit needed to keep suppliers from exiting the business ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the free market works, though, prevailing prices should relate to cost in the long run, since the equilibrium price of a competitive market is cost plus a reasonable profit ("reasonable profit" being the minimum profit needed to keep suppliers from exiting the business).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997644</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265134200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mass market hard cover books, including new Dan Brown or Stephen King, sell for approx $15 on amazon, the trade paperbacks that come out within a year sell for around $13 and the trade paperbacks sell for between $8 and $10.</p><p>The thing is the ebook version never really changes price. It is almost always at $9.99 until the trade version comes out then it is the same price.</p><p>Book publishers are making many of the same mistakes music labels did and trying to price a physical and digital product at the same price.</p><p>Many people view a digital copies as worth less and that is what drives  their price threshold. There are ways to get people to spend $15 on an ebook. Change the reading expirence by including expandable author's notes in certain sections, include web-links to background information in non-fiction books. Or include video links for interesting content.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mass market hard cover books , including new Dan Brown or Stephen King , sell for approx $ 15 on amazon , the trade paperbacks that come out within a year sell for around $ 13 and the trade paperbacks sell for between $ 8 and $ 10.The thing is the ebook version never really changes price .
It is almost always at $ 9.99 until the trade version comes out then it is the same price.Book publishers are making many of the same mistakes music labels did and trying to price a physical and digital product at the same price.Many people view a digital copies as worth less and that is what drives their price threshold .
There are ways to get people to spend $ 15 on an ebook .
Change the reading expirence by including expandable author 's notes in certain sections , include web-links to background information in non-fiction books .
Or include video links for interesting content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mass market hard cover books, including new Dan Brown or Stephen King, sell for approx $15 on amazon, the trade paperbacks that come out within a year sell for around $13 and the trade paperbacks sell for between $8 and $10.The thing is the ebook version never really changes price.
It is almost always at $9.99 until the trade version comes out then it is the same price.Book publishers are making many of the same mistakes music labels did and trying to price a physical and digital product at the same price.Many people view a digital copies as worth less and that is what drives  their price threshold.
There are ways to get people to spend $15 on an ebook.
Change the reading expirence by including expandable author's notes in certain sections, include web-links to background information in non-fiction books.
Or include video links for interesting content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003876</id>
	<title>Re:There's a difference between books and music...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265120340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and I care very much about reading *one* *particular* book.</p></div><p>The Very Hungry Caterpillar?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I care very much about reading * one * * particular * book.The Very Hungry Caterpillar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I care very much about reading *one* *particular* book.The Very Hungry Caterpillar?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995748</id>
	<title>Re:Print Vs Online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 2 sources for ebooks, ereader and safarionline, let me highlight and annotate. What's even better is that I can find the page I'm looking for by looking at my list of notes rather than the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 2 sources for ebooks , ereader and safarionline , let me highlight and annotate .
What 's even better is that I can find the page I 'm looking for by looking at my list of notes rather than the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 2 sources for ebooks, ereader and safarionline, let me highlight and annotate.
What's even better is that I can find the page I'm looking for by looking at my list of notes rather than the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995820</id>
	<title>Re:unfortunately, recently permitted in the U.S.</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1265128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, if there was ever a post that deserved +5 informative....</p><p>Well, in lieu of mod points... all I have is a thank you, your post was most... informative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , if there was ever a post that deserved + 5 informative....Well , in lieu of mod points... all I have is a thank you , your post was most... informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, if there was ever a post that deserved +5 informative....Well, in lieu of mod points... all I have is a thank you, your post was most... informative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31002044</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1265109780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>e-books have additional production costs associated with them (formatting for screen, electronic distribution, electronic storage, and yes, DRM), and these are new things that don't have to happen for paper books.</p></div></blockquote><p>How is electronic storage a cost for ebooks and not for normal books? How is electronic distribution a significant cost? How is formatting a cost for ebooks and not normal books? (hell, how is it a cost at all? LaTeX is free, after all; after that, just get an intern to read the formatted book and make sure it works).</p><p>I mean, seriously. I don't get it. I could buy Godaddy's cheapest hosting plan, and for $5/month I'd get enough disk space to store over nine thousand books at once, and enough total bandwidth to sell 300,000 e-books a month.</p><p>The only part that would actually cost real money out of the things you've mentioned is DRM, and honestly I would cheap out on that. If people want to pirate your book, they're going to pirate it. Someone who doesn't think twice about downloading $blockbuster\_game 2 isn't going to blink twice at downloading a megabyte of information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>e-books have additional production costs associated with them ( formatting for screen , electronic distribution , electronic storage , and yes , DRM ) , and these are new things that do n't have to happen for paper books.How is electronic storage a cost for ebooks and not for normal books ?
How is electronic distribution a significant cost ?
How is formatting a cost for ebooks and not normal books ?
( hell , how is it a cost at all ?
LaTeX is free , after all ; after that , just get an intern to read the formatted book and make sure it works ) .I mean , seriously .
I do n't get it .
I could buy Godaddy 's cheapest hosting plan , and for $ 5/month I 'd get enough disk space to store over nine thousand books at once , and enough total bandwidth to sell 300,000 e-books a month.The only part that would actually cost real money out of the things you 've mentioned is DRM , and honestly I would cheap out on that .
If people want to pirate your book , they 're going to pirate it .
Someone who does n't think twice about downloading $ blockbuster \ _game 2 is n't going to blink twice at downloading a megabyte of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>e-books have additional production costs associated with them (formatting for screen, electronic distribution, electronic storage, and yes, DRM), and these are new things that don't have to happen for paper books.How is electronic storage a cost for ebooks and not for normal books?
How is electronic distribution a significant cost?
How is formatting a cost for ebooks and not normal books?
(hell, how is it a cost at all?
LaTeX is free, after all; after that, just get an intern to read the formatted book and make sure it works).I mean, seriously.
I don't get it.
I could buy Godaddy's cheapest hosting plan, and for $5/month I'd get enough disk space to store over nine thousand books at once, and enough total bandwidth to sell 300,000 e-books a month.The only part that would actually cost real money out of the things you've mentioned is DRM, and honestly I would cheap out on that.
If people want to pirate your book, they're going to pirate it.
Someone who doesn't think twice about downloading $blockbuster\_game 2 isn't going to blink twice at downloading a megabyte of information.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000264</id>
	<title>Re:From that bastion of Right Wing Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That quote manages to destroy itself. Run through the math, and, yeah, of COURSE people think the ebook should be cheaper. Fully half the 'expense' was retailer markup, which goes away when you go electronic. Another big chunk was the physical part, which also goes away.</p><p>Some publishers that were selling $10 worth of work for $12.50 seem to think they can get away with selling $4 worth of work for $15...</p><p>Additionally, they try to use the hardcover numbers even when talking about the ebook version of something that has a paperback version. Something that retails for $7-$10 and makes all parties involved a profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That quote manages to destroy itself .
Run through the math , and , yeah , of COURSE people think the ebook should be cheaper .
Fully half the 'expense ' was retailer markup , which goes away when you go electronic .
Another big chunk was the physical part , which also goes away.Some publishers that were selling $ 10 worth of work for $ 12.50 seem to think they can get away with selling $ 4 worth of work for $ 15...Additionally , they try to use the hardcover numbers even when talking about the ebook version of something that has a paperback version .
Something that retails for $ 7- $ 10 and makes all parties involved a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That quote manages to destroy itself.
Run through the math, and, yeah, of COURSE people think the ebook should be cheaper.
Fully half the 'expense' was retailer markup, which goes away when you go electronic.
Another big chunk was the physical part, which also goes away.Some publishers that were selling $10 worth of work for $12.50 seem to think they can get away with selling $4 worth of work for $15...Additionally, they try to use the hardcover numbers even when talking about the ebook version of something that has a paperback version.
Something that retails for $7-$10 and makes all parties involved a profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995938</id>
	<title>Re:From that bastion of Right Wing Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The retail profit margin is another place where we should look for price reductions.  Those 40 to 50 per cent markups are interest on the retailer&rsquo;s investment for financing and stocking their inventory, and occasionally taking a bath on bad choices.  This cost would not appertain to stocking ebooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The retail profit margin is another place where we should look for price reductions .
Those 40 to 50 per cent markups are interest on the retailer    s investment for financing and stocking their inventory , and occasionally taking a bath on bad choices .
This cost would not appertain to stocking ebooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The retail profit margin is another place where we should look for price reductions.
Those 40 to 50 per cent markups are interest on the retailer’s investment for financing and stocking their inventory, and occasionally taking a bath on bad choices.
This cost would not appertain to stocking ebooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995096</id>
	<title>confused..</title>
	<author>MickyTheIdiot</author>
	<datestamp>1265125620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure I get this press release.  Does this mean Amazon is going to raise the price of just MacMillan books?  The beginning seems to imply yes and the end seems to say no.</p><p>If it's all new titles that would be collusion.  If not it actually looks like an opportunity the market could actually work for once.  Other vendors could keep down their prices for big parts of the book market that don't work on big author names and MacMillan could get hurt in end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure I get this press release .
Does this mean Amazon is going to raise the price of just MacMillan books ?
The beginning seems to imply yes and the end seems to say no.If it 's all new titles that would be collusion .
If not it actually looks like an opportunity the market could actually work for once .
Other vendors could keep down their prices for big parts of the book market that do n't work on big author names and MacMillan could get hurt in end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure I get this press release.
Does this mean Amazon is going to raise the price of just MacMillan books?
The beginning seems to imply yes and the end seems to say no.If it's all new titles that would be collusion.
If not it actually looks like an opportunity the market could actually work for once.
Other vendors could keep down their prices for big parts of the book market that don't work on big author names and MacMillan could get hurt in end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995672</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>Phyrexicaid</author>
	<datestamp>1265127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's right, because nobody markets books, or pays authors, or runs press tours, or edits books...</p></div><p>... and none of that has any bearing on the marginal cost of production of an ebook. The fixed costs are just that, fixed. The marginal cost associated with selling an ebook is *zero* (Amazon covers the cost of sending you the ones and zeroes)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right , because nobody markets books , or pays authors , or runs press tours , or edits books...... and none of that has any bearing on the marginal cost of production of an ebook .
The fixed costs are just that , fixed .
The marginal cost associated with selling an ebook is * zero * ( Amazon covers the cost of sending you the ones and zeroes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right, because nobody markets books, or pays authors, or runs press tours, or edits books...... and none of that has any bearing on the marginal cost of production of an ebook.
The fixed costs are just that, fixed.
The marginal cost associated with selling an ebook is *zero* (Amazon covers the cost of sending you the ones and zeroes)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997058</id>
	<title>Re:Why Publishers Exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265132400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you taken a look at "actual shelves" recently? If that is not the definition of "random crap" I dont know what is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you taken a look at " actual shelves " recently ?
If that is not the definition of " random crap " I dont know what is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you taken a look at "actual shelves" recently?
If that is not the definition of "random crap" I dont know what is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995168</id>
	<title>No More!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265125920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Copyright is a lousy idea and we need to banish the notion of copyright completely. Patents need a kick in the head as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright is a lousy idea and we need to banish the notion of copyright completely .
Patents need a kick in the head as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Copyright is a lousy idea and we need to banish the notion of copyright completely.
Patents need a kick in the head as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995004</id>
	<title>Monopoly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"monopoly over their own titles"

That word does not mean what you think it means...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" monopoly over their own titles " That word does not mean what you think it means.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"monopoly over their own titles"

That word does not mean what you think it means...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are correct. The whole idea of buying e-books is because they are easy to carry and store and is less expensive. So an increase in price is not going to help the publishing industry in the right way.

Expensive books are also encouraging people to acquire books by piracy as common man is unable to pay the high cost of getting books.

<a href="http://softwareengineerspeaking.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://softwareengineerspeaking.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct .
The whole idea of buying e-books is because they are easy to carry and store and is less expensive .
So an increase in price is not going to help the publishing industry in the right way .
Expensive books are also encouraging people to acquire books by piracy as common man is unable to pay the high cost of getting books .
http : //softwareengineerspeaking.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct.
The whole idea of buying e-books is because they are easy to carry and store and is less expensive.
So an increase in price is not going to help the publishing industry in the right way.
Expensive books are also encouraging people to acquire books by piracy as common man is unable to pay the high cost of getting books.
http://softwareengineerspeaking.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000842</id>
	<title>Amazon did fire a shot across Macmillan's bow...</title>
	<author>SiChemist</author>
	<datestamp>1265103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the next-to-last paragraph in TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>Amazon said other publishers and independent presses might ''see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative''.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the next-to-last paragraph in TFA : Amazon said other publishers and independent presses might ''see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative'' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the next-to-last paragraph in TFA:Amazon said other publishers and independent presses might ''see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative''.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996756</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1265131380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, #1 -- Dan Brown?  Save your money.  And your time.  Seriously, just go watch some tv or something.</p><p>#2 -- Most books never get released in mass market.  You only get a mass market printing if you have a successful hardcover release.  It just costs too much otherwise.  Hardcovers are priced so that the particular book won't lose the publisher too much money.  Mass market sales are gravy, and are priced as such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , # 1 -- Dan Brown ?
Save your money .
And your time .
Seriously , just go watch some tv or something. # 2 -- Most books never get released in mass market .
You only get a mass market printing if you have a successful hardcover release .
It just costs too much otherwise .
Hardcovers are priced so that the particular book wo n't lose the publisher too much money .
Mass market sales are gravy , and are priced as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, #1 -- Dan Brown?
Save your money.
And your time.
Seriously, just go watch some tv or something.#2 -- Most books never get released in mass market.
You only get a mass market printing if you have a successful hardcover release.
It just costs too much otherwise.
Hardcovers are priced so that the particular book won't lose the publisher too much money.
Mass market sales are gravy, and are priced as such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996846</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265131680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:</p></div><p>Yes, they do. And rolling your eyes like that makes you look like Marty Feldman and not in a good way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>riiiight , because they are going to charge $ 14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out.. : eyeroll : Yes , they do .
And rolling your eyes like that makes you look like Marty Feldman and not in a good way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:Yes, they do.
And rolling your eyes like that makes you look like Marty Feldman and not in a good way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995816</id>
	<title>Corrections</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1265128320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the free market works,</i><br>Which, it exhaustive historical observation repeatedly shows that the notion of competitive markets are temporary until some kind of Monopoly/Oligopoly/other mature market takes its place.  Book Publishing (not the act of writing the book) is an Oligopoly.</p><p><i>prevailing prices </i><br>Prices are simply the cost at which someone is willing to buy and the cost at which a publisher is willing to sell.  No relation to anything else is ever necessary.  Look at the pricing for DVD's.  They cost less than $3 to make and deliver yet the average american consumer pays maybe 10+ times that for the latest and greatest?</p><p><i>reasonable profit</i><br>A 'reasonable profit' is the one the seller thinks is reasonable.  If I can sell a DVD for USD$1000 that cost me $5 to make, then $995 is a reasonable profit.  The only thing I need is a willing buyer.  No rational thinking required.</p><p>This concludes the Economics lesson for today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the free market works,Which , it exhaustive historical observation repeatedly shows that the notion of competitive markets are temporary until some kind of Monopoly/Oligopoly/other mature market takes its place .
Book Publishing ( not the act of writing the book ) is an Oligopoly.prevailing prices Prices are simply the cost at which someone is willing to buy and the cost at which a publisher is willing to sell .
No relation to anything else is ever necessary .
Look at the pricing for DVD 's .
They cost less than $ 3 to make and deliver yet the average american consumer pays maybe 10 + times that for the latest and greatest ? reasonable profitA 'reasonable profit ' is the one the seller thinks is reasonable .
If I can sell a DVD for USD $ 1000 that cost me $ 5 to make , then $ 995 is a reasonable profit .
The only thing I need is a willing buyer .
No rational thinking required.This concludes the Economics lesson for today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the free market works,Which, it exhaustive historical observation repeatedly shows that the notion of competitive markets are temporary until some kind of Monopoly/Oligopoly/other mature market takes its place.
Book Publishing (not the act of writing the book) is an Oligopoly.prevailing prices Prices are simply the cost at which someone is willing to buy and the cost at which a publisher is willing to sell.
No relation to anything else is ever necessary.
Look at the pricing for DVD's.
They cost less than $3 to make and deliver yet the average american consumer pays maybe 10+ times that for the latest and greatest?reasonable profitA 'reasonable profit' is the one the seller thinks is reasonable.
If I can sell a DVD for USD$1000 that cost me $5 to make, then $995 is a reasonable profit.
The only thing I need is a willing buyer.
No rational thinking required.This concludes the Economics lesson for today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997478</id>
	<title>Have fun not selling any books.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1265133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a bunch of idiots.</p><p>Common sense would dictate that an "ebook" should be CHEAPER than a "normal" book.</p><p>I would have a hard time paying 9.99$, so I definitely would NOT pay 14.99$. That is stupid.</p><p>It will just be their lost business. If they are doing this in a misguided attempt to discourage ebook sales in favor of traditional book sales, they they just don't get it. Someone will just do a better job, and that is what people will do. Just means no one will read their books, and anyone interested in reading books on anything but an iPAD (which isn't a dedicated ebook reader, nor can you use it outside due to glossy LCD) will simply give their money to someone else.</p><p>I read normal books anyway, so the effect on me, or my effect on them is negligible anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a bunch of idiots.Common sense would dictate that an " ebook " should be CHEAPER than a " normal " book.I would have a hard time paying 9.99 $ , so I definitely would NOT pay 14.99 $ .
That is stupid.It will just be their lost business .
If they are doing this in a misguided attempt to discourage ebook sales in favor of traditional book sales , they they just do n't get it .
Someone will just do a better job , and that is what people will do .
Just means no one will read their books , and anyone interested in reading books on anything but an iPAD ( which is n't a dedicated ebook reader , nor can you use it outside due to glossy LCD ) will simply give their money to someone else.I read normal books anyway , so the effect on me , or my effect on them is negligible anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a bunch of idiots.Common sense would dictate that an "ebook" should be CHEAPER than a "normal" book.I would have a hard time paying 9.99$, so I definitely would NOT pay 14.99$.
That is stupid.It will just be their lost business.
If they are doing this in a misguided attempt to discourage ebook sales in favor of traditional book sales, they they just don't get it.
Someone will just do a better job, and that is what people will do.
Just means no one will read their books, and anyone interested in reading books on anything but an iPAD (which isn't a dedicated ebook reader, nor can you use it outside due to glossy LCD) will simply give their money to someone else.I read normal books anyway, so the effect on me, or my effect on them is negligible anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31004638</id>
	<title>Macmillan just created a whole new wave of pirates</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1265125260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And those new pirates are all people who were former Macmillan customers/buyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And those new pirates are all people who were former Macmillan customers/buyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And those new pirates are all people who were former Macmillan customers/buyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158</id>
	<title>It's a little more complicated</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1265125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we still need publishers?  The question should really be 'what function that publishers perform do we still need and how should those functions be provided?'   Perhaps also 'Can a startup provide these functions and replace the entrenched companies?'  We still need someone to plan the path from manuscript to finished book including content editing, grammar editing, artwork (inside figures and on the cover), legal issues (in every country where it's released), promotion/advertising, marketing (advising when a release will be available, how it will be different from last edition, etc). Should the publishers profit from owning relationships with the distributors, bookshops and retailers even when they're selling electronically? No, they shouldn't be able to gain from a monopoly in what should be a competitive market, but we still need some functions.</p><p>When a internet enabled solution for those issues starts to take off the publishers will start to lose their grasp on the book market and we all will be better off for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we still need publishers ?
The question should really be 'what function that publishers perform do we still need and how should those functions be provided ?
' Perhaps also 'Can a startup provide these functions and replace the entrenched companies ?
' We still need someone to plan the path from manuscript to finished book including content editing , grammar editing , artwork ( inside figures and on the cover ) , legal issues ( in every country where it 's released ) , promotion/advertising , marketing ( advising when a release will be available , how it will be different from last edition , etc ) .
Should the publishers profit from owning relationships with the distributors , bookshops and retailers even when they 're selling electronically ?
No , they should n't be able to gain from a monopoly in what should be a competitive market , but we still need some functions.When a internet enabled solution for those issues starts to take off the publishers will start to lose their grasp on the book market and we all will be better off for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we still need publishers?
The question should really be 'what function that publishers perform do we still need and how should those functions be provided?
'   Perhaps also 'Can a startup provide these functions and replace the entrenched companies?
'  We still need someone to plan the path from manuscript to finished book including content editing, grammar editing, artwork (inside figures and on the cover), legal issues (in every country where it's released), promotion/advertising, marketing (advising when a release will be available, how it will be different from last edition, etc).
Should the publishers profit from owning relationships with the distributors, bookshops and retailers even when they're selling electronically?
No, they shouldn't be able to gain from a monopoly in what should be a competitive market, but we still need some functions.When a internet enabled solution for those issues starts to take off the publishers will start to lose their grasp on the book market and we all will be better off for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995450</id>
	<title>It happens because we let them</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1265127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pirate their books until they are broke. They've "earned" so much already. Free the knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pirate their books until they are broke .
They 've " earned " so much already .
Free the knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pirate their books until they are broke.
They've "earned" so much already.
Free the knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003860</id>
	<title>Alternative approach</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1265120280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if I'm wasting my time here or if I should patent the idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Make a shop in which authors can sell books like developers can sell apps in the Apple appstore. Have them set a price for the book. Then (and now comes the interesting part) have a way for the readers/buyers to VOTE WITH THEIR MONEY for a book by giving the author (and him alone) another amount of money if they liked the book. Rank authors and books by the number of people giving additional money and by how much they gave. Allow those (and only those) to write comments and reviews on it.</p><p>What would this produce? Now, probably a steaming pile of shit consisting of lots of cheap books with some diamonds hidden in it. But who cares for the shit if you can find the diamonds easily? In fact I think that such a combination of a direct shop with crowd-sourcing by money would work even with apps, music and other things. People like to promote things they like and have usually no problem to give a tip to someone who deserves it. Combine these and make sure that the money lands where it belongs and you may have solved a hard problem.</p><p>Of course you would also need an additional market for people actually helping authors to write books very much like publishers do. But as this is just a service there's no reason why an open market shouldn't work here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if I 'm wasting my time here or if I should patent the idea ; - ) Make a shop in which authors can sell books like developers can sell apps in the Apple appstore .
Have them set a price for the book .
Then ( and now comes the interesting part ) have a way for the readers/buyers to VOTE WITH THEIR MONEY for a book by giving the author ( and him alone ) another amount of money if they liked the book .
Rank authors and books by the number of people giving additional money and by how much they gave .
Allow those ( and only those ) to write comments and reviews on it.What would this produce ?
Now , probably a steaming pile of shit consisting of lots of cheap books with some diamonds hidden in it .
But who cares for the shit if you can find the diamonds easily ?
In fact I think that such a combination of a direct shop with crowd-sourcing by money would work even with apps , music and other things .
People like to promote things they like and have usually no problem to give a tip to someone who deserves it .
Combine these and make sure that the money lands where it belongs and you may have solved a hard problem.Of course you would also need an additional market for people actually helping authors to write books very much like publishers do .
But as this is just a service there 's no reason why an open market should n't work here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if I'm wasting my time here or if I should patent the idea ;-)Make a shop in which authors can sell books like developers can sell apps in the Apple appstore.
Have them set a price for the book.
Then (and now comes the interesting part) have a way for the readers/buyers to VOTE WITH THEIR MONEY for a book by giving the author (and him alone) another amount of money if they liked the book.
Rank authors and books by the number of people giving additional money and by how much they gave.
Allow those (and only those) to write comments and reviews on it.What would this produce?
Now, probably a steaming pile of shit consisting of lots of cheap books with some diamonds hidden in it.
But who cares for the shit if you can find the diamonds easily?
In fact I think that such a combination of a direct shop with crowd-sourcing by money would work even with apps, music and other things.
People like to promote things they like and have usually no problem to give a tip to someone who deserves it.
Combine these and make sure that the money lands where it belongs and you may have solved a hard problem.Of course you would also need an additional market for people actually helping authors to write books very much like publishers do.
But as this is just a service there's no reason why an open market shouldn't work here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995806</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't you think that new books are directly converted into digital, instead of being printed and OCRed ?</p></div><p>Exactly. Even back in the days of PageMaker, no one would have printed out a newsletter or book, and then OCR'd it to get it into electronic format! Good Lord....</p><p>For print-on-demand books (e.g., via LightningSource), you simply supply a "camera-ready" PDF to the printshop; the books are printed directly from that file. Given that eBooks are consistently sold in PDF format, I'd be very surprised if printing plates for web-offset presses weren't likewise being created directly from PDF files, across the industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think that new books are directly converted into digital , instead of being printed and OCRed ? Exactly .
Even back in the days of PageMaker , no one would have printed out a newsletter or book , and then OCR 'd it to get it into electronic format !
Good Lord....For print-on-demand books ( e.g. , via LightningSource ) , you simply supply a " camera-ready " PDF to the printshop ; the books are printed directly from that file .
Given that eBooks are consistently sold in PDF format , I 'd be very surprised if printing plates for web-offset presses were n't likewise being created directly from PDF files , across the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think that new books are directly converted into digital, instead of being printed and OCRed ?Exactly.
Even back in the days of PageMaker, no one would have printed out a newsletter or book, and then OCR'd it to get it into electronic format!
Good Lord....For print-on-demand books (e.g., via LightningSource), you simply supply a "camera-ready" PDF to the printshop; the books are printed directly from that file.
Given that eBooks are consistently sold in PDF format, I'd be very surprised if printing plates for web-offset presses weren't likewise being created directly from PDF files, across the industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31006750</id>
	<title>Amazon T-Rex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264968480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you want to replace the dinosaurs with the big Amazon T-Rex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you want to replace the dinosaurs with the big Amazon T-Rex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you want to replace the dinosaurs with the big Amazon T-Rex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995282</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1265126340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read this post from one of Macmillan's authors (Tobias Buckell). An excellent explanation for why tiered pricing is a good business practice. <br> <br>
<a href="http://www.sfwa.org/2010/01/why-my-books-are-no-longer-available-on-amazon-com/" title="sfwa.org">http://www.sfwa.org/2010/01/why-my-books-are-no-longer-available-on-amazon-com/</a> [sfwa.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this post from one of Macmillan 's authors ( Tobias Buckell ) .
An excellent explanation for why tiered pricing is a good business practice .
http : //www.sfwa.org/2010/01/why-my-books-are-no-longer-available-on-amazon-com/ [ sfwa.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read this post from one of Macmillan's authors (Tobias Buckell).
An excellent explanation for why tiered pricing is a good business practice.
http://www.sfwa.org/2010/01/why-my-books-are-no-longer-available-on-amazon-com/ [sfwa.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995230</id>
	<title>Print Vs Online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm intrigued by the NTY article's reporting of the trend towards <i>free</i> online books.  It sounds great to me - the only drawback I could see is that I really like my textbooks from college. I still have bookcases of them even after...er...well a number of years in the workforce. I would be worried about the sustainability of the online versions. Plus, it's pretty hard to use a highlighter on them.  I tried it, and my monitor hasn't worked the same since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm intrigued by the NTY article 's reporting of the trend towards free online books .
It sounds great to me - the only drawback I could see is that I really like my textbooks from college .
I still have bookcases of them even after...er...well a number of years in the workforce .
I would be worried about the sustainability of the online versions .
Plus , it 's pretty hard to use a highlighter on them .
I tried it , and my monitor has n't worked the same since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm intrigued by the NTY article's reporting of the trend towards free online books.
It sounds great to me - the only drawback I could see is that I really like my textbooks from college.
I still have bookcases of them even after...er...well a number of years in the workforce.
I would be worried about the sustainability of the online versions.
Plus, it's pretty hard to use a highlighter on them.
I tried it, and my monitor hasn't worked the same since.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995792</id>
	<title>Optimal pricing IS based on marginal cost</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1265128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.</p></div><p>If you take an economics 101 course you'll find that in most cases the optimal price to sell at is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal\_revenue#Maximizing\_profits\_using\_MR" title="wikipedia.org">where marginal revenue equals marginal cost</a> [wikipedia.org].  So yes, prices are indeed based on marginal cost.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They aren't in practically any market...</p></div><p>On the contrary, prices are based on marginal cost in practically EVERY market including monopolies.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.</p></div><p>Which is what determines marginal revenue at a given price point.  If they price the product too high, marginal cost will exceed marginal revenue which is a fancy way of saying they'll lose sales.  If they price too low, sales will be high(er) but they will be leaving money on the table.  But there is copious economic literature establishing that the optimal prices is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost.  Don't take my word for it, look it up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.If you take an economics 101 course you 'll find that in most cases the optimal price to sell at is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost [ wikipedia.org ] .
So yes , prices are indeed based on marginal cost.They are n't in practically any market...On the contrary , prices are based on marginal cost in practically EVERY market including monopolies .
...they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.Which is what determines marginal revenue at a given price point .
If they price the product too high , marginal cost will exceed marginal revenue which is a fancy way of saying they 'll lose sales .
If they price too low , sales will be high ( er ) but they will be leaving money on the table .
But there is copious economic literature establishing that the optimal prices is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost .
Do n't take my word for it , look it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are under the false assumption that items are priced based on marginal cost.If you take an economics 101 course you'll find that in most cases the optimal price to sell at is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost [wikipedia.org].
So yes, prices are indeed based on marginal cost.They aren't in practically any market...On the contrary, prices are based on marginal cost in practically EVERY market including monopolies.
...they are priced at what consumers will pay and what the competition is selling at.Which is what determines marginal revenue at a given price point.
If they price the product too high, marginal cost will exceed marginal revenue which is a fancy way of saying they'll lose sales.
If they price too low, sales will be high(er) but they will be leaving money on the table.
But there is copious economic literature establishing that the optimal prices is where marginal revenue equals marginal cost.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996588</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1265130780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The marginal cost of production for books is already about as low as it will go.  e-books make this <em>almost</em> zero, but it wasn't a huge factor to begin with.
<br> <br>
e-books have additional production costs associated with them (formatting for screen, electronic distribution, electronic storage, and yes, DRM), and these are new things that don't have to happen for paper books.  The production process for paper books has been refined over many, many years (at least a hundred in the case of Macmillan US), and so costs are pretty low.  e-books are new ground, and so right now, publishers are <em>spending</em> money to break into this market.  We'll see how costs shake out in the long run.
<br> <br>
To give you an idea of the cost breakdown, look <a href="http://www.uncp.edu/bookstore/pdf/textbook.pdf" title="uncp.edu">here</a> [uncp.edu].  Diagram is for textbooks; trade publishing is a bit different, but not wildly so.  As you can see, freight is a very small part of the cost, and (it's not clear from the diagram) but printing is not a huge contributor, either.  It's mostly editorial and administrative fees, author royalties, sub-licensing, and taxes.
<br> <br>
(I work in publishing)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The marginal cost of production for books is already about as low as it will go .
e-books make this almost zero , but it was n't a huge factor to begin with .
e-books have additional production costs associated with them ( formatting for screen , electronic distribution , electronic storage , and yes , DRM ) , and these are new things that do n't have to happen for paper books .
The production process for paper books has been refined over many , many years ( at least a hundred in the case of Macmillan US ) , and so costs are pretty low .
e-books are new ground , and so right now , publishers are spending money to break into this market .
We 'll see how costs shake out in the long run .
To give you an idea of the cost breakdown , look here [ uncp.edu ] .
Diagram is for textbooks ; trade publishing is a bit different , but not wildly so .
As you can see , freight is a very small part of the cost , and ( it 's not clear from the diagram ) but printing is not a huge contributor , either .
It 's mostly editorial and administrative fees , author royalties , sub-licensing , and taxes .
( I work in publishing )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The marginal cost of production for books is already about as low as it will go.
e-books make this almost zero, but it wasn't a huge factor to begin with.
e-books have additional production costs associated with them (formatting for screen, electronic distribution, electronic storage, and yes, DRM), and these are new things that don't have to happen for paper books.
The production process for paper books has been refined over many, many years (at least a hundred in the case of Macmillan US), and so costs are pretty low.
e-books are new ground, and so right now, publishers are spending money to break into this market.
We'll see how costs shake out in the long run.
To give you an idea of the cost breakdown, look here [uncp.edu].
Diagram is for textbooks; trade publishing is a bit different, but not wildly so.
As you can see, freight is a very small part of the cost, and (it's not clear from the diagram) but printing is not a huge contributor, either.
It's mostly editorial and administrative fees, author royalties, sub-licensing, and taxes.
(I work in publishing)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996378</id>
	<title>Textbooks</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1265130060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With textbooks, the trend is to customize the text for each term and each instructor--that way, the books have limited or no value on the secondary market and all students are forced to buy new.<br> <br>Instructors need to move away from these publishing houses and need to start publishing their own titles independently.  Then, the best instructor-written texts can be adopted by those schools that want to use them, and it creates an incentive for other instructors (who feel that they can better present the material, or feel that they have more up-to-date information) to compete on the open market for readers.<br> <br>I wish there were a way we could join together with virtual torches and pitchforks against the big publishing houses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With textbooks , the trend is to customize the text for each term and each instructor--that way , the books have limited or no value on the secondary market and all students are forced to buy new .
Instructors need to move away from these publishing houses and need to start publishing their own titles independently .
Then , the best instructor-written texts can be adopted by those schools that want to use them , and it creates an incentive for other instructors ( who feel that they can better present the material , or feel that they have more up-to-date information ) to compete on the open market for readers .
I wish there were a way we could join together with virtual torches and pitchforks against the big publishing houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With textbooks, the trend is to customize the text for each term and each instructor--that way, the books have limited or no value on the secondary market and all students are forced to buy new.
Instructors need to move away from these publishing houses and need to start publishing their own titles independently.
Then, the best instructor-written texts can be adopted by those schools that want to use them, and it creates an incentive for other instructors (who feel that they can better present the material, or feel that they have more up-to-date information) to compete on the open market for readers.
I wish there were a way we could join together with virtual torches and pitchforks against the big publishing houses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001264</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more of a disincentive to read books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more of a disincentive to read books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more of a disincentive to read books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31002622</id>
	<title>Re:Why Publishers Exist</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1265113200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have much to say about academic book press, but as far as literature goes, your other respondents are correct and more than correct - the publishers are choosing by popularity, and failing miserably in several of the duties that are ostensibly theirs.</p><p>I just read a recent Terry Brooks trilogy, Armageddon's Children.  It was sad.  Brooks wasn't a good author to begin with, going all the way back to The Sword of Shannara, but if his publisher, and in particular his editor, had been doing a job worthy of the name, Sword would have been better than it was and the sequels still better.  They weren't.  His writing hasn't improved in 30 years, and if anything, it has declined.  Armageddon's Children could have been one book.  He padded it enormously, and poorly.  He was immensely repetitive, not very imaginative, and downright unlikely in his descriptions.  I was disappointed.  John W. Campbell, Jr. lived in vain.</p><p>It's true I'm getting older, and possibly more critical in consequence, but I remember thinking that Sword of Shannara was a pretty poor Tolkein imitation even when I first read it, at 15.  So what, really, have the publishers done for me?  I'm really starting to wonder.  I very rarely read fan fiction, but I remember reading two that were creditable competition.  I don't remember who wrote them, and probably nobody has heard of the authors, but there you go.  Publishers are good for plastering New York Times Bestselling Author! on the cover of books and not much else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have much to say about academic book press , but as far as literature goes , your other respondents are correct and more than correct - the publishers are choosing by popularity , and failing miserably in several of the duties that are ostensibly theirs.I just read a recent Terry Brooks trilogy , Armageddon 's Children .
It was sad .
Brooks was n't a good author to begin with , going all the way back to The Sword of Shannara , but if his publisher , and in particular his editor , had been doing a job worthy of the name , Sword would have been better than it was and the sequels still better .
They were n't .
His writing has n't improved in 30 years , and if anything , it has declined .
Armageddon 's Children could have been one book .
He padded it enormously , and poorly .
He was immensely repetitive , not very imaginative , and downright unlikely in his descriptions .
I was disappointed .
John W. Campbell , Jr. lived in vain.It 's true I 'm getting older , and possibly more critical in consequence , but I remember thinking that Sword of Shannara was a pretty poor Tolkein imitation even when I first read it , at 15 .
So what , really , have the publishers done for me ?
I 'm really starting to wonder .
I very rarely read fan fiction , but I remember reading two that were creditable competition .
I do n't remember who wrote them , and probably nobody has heard of the authors , but there you go .
Publishers are good for plastering New York Times Bestselling Author !
on the cover of books and not much else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have much to say about academic book press, but as far as literature goes, your other respondents are correct and more than correct - the publishers are choosing by popularity, and failing miserably in several of the duties that are ostensibly theirs.I just read a recent Terry Brooks trilogy, Armageddon's Children.
It was sad.
Brooks wasn't a good author to begin with, going all the way back to The Sword of Shannara, but if his publisher, and in particular his editor, had been doing a job worthy of the name, Sword would have been better than it was and the sequels still better.
They weren't.
His writing hasn't improved in 30 years, and if anything, it has declined.
Armageddon's Children could have been one book.
He padded it enormously, and poorly.
He was immensely repetitive, not very imaginative, and downright unlikely in his descriptions.
I was disappointed.
John W. Campbell, Jr. lived in vain.It's true I'm getting older, and possibly more critical in consequence, but I remember thinking that Sword of Shannara was a pretty poor Tolkein imitation even when I first read it, at 15.
So what, really, have the publishers done for me?
I'm really starting to wonder.
I very rarely read fan fiction, but I remember reading two that were creditable competition.
I don't remember who wrote them, and probably nobody has heard of the authors, but there you go.
Publishers are good for plastering New York Times Bestselling Author!
on the cover of books and not much else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995558</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>DudeTheMath</author>
	<datestamp>1265127480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I had mod points. Pick your favorite books, and in the acknowledgements, see how often the author thanks his or her editor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points .
Pick your favorite books , and in the acknowledgements , see how often the author thanks his or her editor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points.
Pick your favorite books, and in the acknowledgements, see how often the author thanks his or her editor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996002</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1265128800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More importantly, why not <i>lower</i> the price? The economics, I suppose, come down to how much books compete on price rather than on marketing. I honestly don't know what drives the book market these days. Most of my fiction comes from TV or audio (like the tor.com short fiction podcast) and most of my non-fiction comes from Google Reader or technical sources, so I'm totally out of touch with how people shop for a book. Sure, I'll buy the occasional book at the recommendation of a friend, but I'm not the core demographic anymore. The real question is: who is?</p><p>Once that question is answered the price tag question should  answer itself, and perhaps $15 is the right price-point. Who knows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , why not lower the price ?
The economics , I suppose , come down to how much books compete on price rather than on marketing .
I honestly do n't know what drives the book market these days .
Most of my fiction comes from TV or audio ( like the tor.com short fiction podcast ) and most of my non-fiction comes from Google Reader or technical sources , so I 'm totally out of touch with how people shop for a book .
Sure , I 'll buy the occasional book at the recommendation of a friend , but I 'm not the core demographic anymore .
The real question is : who is ? Once that question is answered the price tag question should answer itself , and perhaps $ 15 is the right price-point .
Who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, why not lower the price?
The economics, I suppose, come down to how much books compete on price rather than on marketing.
I honestly don't know what drives the book market these days.
Most of my fiction comes from TV or audio (like the tor.com short fiction podcast) and most of my non-fiction comes from Google Reader or technical sources, so I'm totally out of touch with how people shop for a book.
Sure, I'll buy the occasional book at the recommendation of a friend, but I'm not the core demographic anymore.
The real question is: who is?Once that question is answered the price tag question should  answer itself, and perhaps $15 is the right price-point.
Who knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998298</id>
	<title>Re:From that bastion of Right Wing Capitalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265136420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As noted by others, publishers serve some very important functions - primarily editing and legal vetting.  As to the braying about the excessive cost of text books - I'll agree the needless changes to editions is bad practice.  However, most text books do not sell in numbers like Eco 101 or Calc 101 do.  The more advanced the class, the fewer the participants.  Factor in that there are usually several adequate titles to chose from and you get very low sales figures for each but as publisher you are stuck with the same, if not higher, overhead of producing and distributing one of those titles.  Thus cost per unit goes up quite a bit.  Those costs also do not go away with an electronic version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As noted by others , publishers serve some very important functions - primarily editing and legal vetting .
As to the braying about the excessive cost of text books - I 'll agree the needless changes to editions is bad practice .
However , most text books do not sell in numbers like Eco 101 or Calc 101 do .
The more advanced the class , the fewer the participants .
Factor in that there are usually several adequate titles to chose from and you get very low sales figures for each but as publisher you are stuck with the same , if not higher , overhead of producing and distributing one of those titles .
Thus cost per unit goes up quite a bit .
Those costs also do not go away with an electronic version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As noted by others, publishers serve some very important functions - primarily editing and legal vetting.
As to the braying about the excessive cost of text books - I'll agree the needless changes to editions is bad practice.
However, most text books do not sell in numbers like Eco 101 or Calc 101 do.
The more advanced the class, the fewer the participants.
Factor in that there are usually several adequate titles to chose from and you get very low sales figures for each but as publisher you are stuck with the same, if not higher, overhead of producing and distributing one of those titles.
Thus cost per unit goes up quite a bit.
Those costs also do not go away with an electronic version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998614</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1265137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:</p></div><p>Actually, that is <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/earthling" title="macmillan.com">exactly what they are doing</a> [macmillan.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>riiiight , because they are going to charge $ 14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out.. : eyeroll : Actually , that is exactly what they are doing [ macmillan.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:Actually, that is exactly what they are doing [macmillan.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30999354</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1265140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that theory has been proven logically inconsistent by Steve Keen. He wrote a paper about it with Russel Standish in Physica A: <a href="http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/Papers/Micro/KeenStandish2006\_CritiqueNeoclassicalTheoryOfFirm\_PhysicaA370pp81-85.pdf" title="debunkingeconomics.com">http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/Papers/Micro/KeenStandish2006\_CritiqueNeoclassicalTheoryOfFirm\_PhysicaA370pp81-85.pdf</a> [debunkingeconomics.com]</p><p>What it comes down to is that the classical argument is a wrong calculation of total derivative. And not only the classical reasoning is wrong, it is also wrong empirically, experimentally, and from the game theory point of view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that theory has been proven logically inconsistent by Steve Keen .
He wrote a paper about it with Russel Standish in Physica A : http : //www.debunkingeconomics.com/Papers/Micro/KeenStandish2006 \ _CritiqueNeoclassicalTheoryOfFirm \ _PhysicaA370pp81-85.pdf [ debunkingeconomics.com ] What it comes down to is that the classical argument is a wrong calculation of total derivative .
And not only the classical reasoning is wrong , it is also wrong empirically , experimentally , and from the game theory point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that theory has been proven logically inconsistent by Steve Keen.
He wrote a paper about it with Russel Standish in Physica A: http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/Papers/Micro/KeenStandish2006\_CritiqueNeoclassicalTheoryOfFirm\_PhysicaA370pp81-85.pdf [debunkingeconomics.com]What it comes down to is that the classical argument is a wrong calculation of total derivative.
And not only the classical reasoning is wrong, it is also wrong empirically, experimentally, and from the game theory point of view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996562</id>
	<title>My question is this</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1265130660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If what publishers offered to writers was a necessity, (physical publishing) then what do they have to offer with eBooks?  Nothing you can't get elsewhere.  eBook distribution, editing, and marketing you can get anywhere.  If I were a writer with any clout, I would tell companies like Macmillan to shove it.  Offer my book for physical publishing *only* to a publisher with the best offering for myself and my fanbase, NOT give up any ownership / copyrights, and publish it eBook style on my own.  That way I get a far bigger cut from the eBook and you don't have asshead jerks screwing over my fanbase on the eBook front.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If what publishers offered to writers was a necessity , ( physical publishing ) then what do they have to offer with eBooks ?
Nothing you ca n't get elsewhere .
eBook distribution , editing , and marketing you can get anywhere .
If I were a writer with any clout , I would tell companies like Macmillan to shove it .
Offer my book for physical publishing * only * to a publisher with the best offering for myself and my fanbase , NOT give up any ownership / copyrights , and publish it eBook style on my own .
That way I get a far bigger cut from the eBook and you do n't have asshead jerks screwing over my fanbase on the eBook front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If what publishers offered to writers was a necessity, (physical publishing) then what do they have to offer with eBooks?
Nothing you can't get elsewhere.
eBook distribution, editing, and marketing you can get anywhere.
If I were a writer with any clout, I would tell companies like Macmillan to shove it.
Offer my book for physical publishing *only* to a publisher with the best offering for myself and my fanbase, NOT give up any ownership / copyrights, and publish it eBook style on my own.
That way I get a far bigger cut from the eBook and you don't have asshead jerks screwing over my fanbase on the eBook front.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995142</id>
	<title>There's a difference between books and music...</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1265125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least for me... I invest a lot more in the books I read than in the music I listen to, and I care very much about reading *one* *particular* book. This means that there's not a lot of competition.  I think part of the reason is that, for all the categories of books, the purchase price is the smallest part of the investment I make in the book.  My major investment in the book is the time and energy I spend reading it.  Ideas are not really fungible when they're new--and even when they're old, there's a lot to be said for getting the ideas from the source instead of from the imitators.  In fiction, I'd much rather read Heinlein than an imitator of Heinlein.  And if it costs a couple of bukcs more?  Oh well.</p><p>I certainly recognize that some might be just as passionate about one particular song or one particular album.  But it still seems to me, intuitively, that the music market is a little bit more competitive and dynamic than the book market is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least for me... I invest a lot more in the books I read than in the music I listen to , and I care very much about reading * one * * particular * book .
This means that there 's not a lot of competition .
I think part of the reason is that , for all the categories of books , the purchase price is the smallest part of the investment I make in the book .
My major investment in the book is the time and energy I spend reading it .
Ideas are not really fungible when they 're new--and even when they 're old , there 's a lot to be said for getting the ideas from the source instead of from the imitators .
In fiction , I 'd much rather read Heinlein than an imitator of Heinlein .
And if it costs a couple of bukcs more ?
Oh well.I certainly recognize that some might be just as passionate about one particular song or one particular album .
But it still seems to me , intuitively , that the music market is a little bit more competitive and dynamic than the book market is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least for me... I invest a lot more in the books I read than in the music I listen to, and I care very much about reading *one* *particular* book.
This means that there's not a lot of competition.
I think part of the reason is that, for all the categories of books, the purchase price is the smallest part of the investment I make in the book.
My major investment in the book is the time and energy I spend reading it.
Ideas are not really fungible when they're new--and even when they're old, there's a lot to be said for getting the ideas from the source instead of from the imitators.
In fiction, I'd much rather read Heinlein than an imitator of Heinlein.
And if it costs a couple of bukcs more?
Oh well.I certainly recognize that some might be just as passionate about one particular song or one particular album.
But it still seems to me, intuitively, that the music market is a little bit more competitive and dynamic than the book market is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166</id>
	<title>Why Publishers Exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and "filtering" services.  Editorially, they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically (grammar, spelling, etc) correct and engaging as possible.  As for filtering, they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet, and why for those who create content, being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued.  Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet, but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap doesn't flood the actual shelves.<br><br>For certain types of content, such as text books and works of history, philosophy, and journalism the effect this has can go either way in how people, including myself, are willing to weigh benefits vs detractions.  Certainly, it would be better if this content was more democratically available -- however, facts still need to be checked for correctness, copy edited etc.  For works of literature, the potentially stifling affect on discourse is much more limited and even though I've almost always been on the losing side of the submission, I'm willing to accept the judgement of poetry and fiction editors as far as to what's actually worth something and what isn't, as they deal in literature every day and see submissions from all kinds of sources -- and when you finally do get a piece accepted then the fact that you had to try so hard to get through the filter makes the joy of it all the greater.  That's not really a feeling one can get on the internet where the cost of reproduction approaches zero and so there is no real reason not accept a piece, or when one can stick whatever crap they would like on their own site and eventually someone will see it.<br><br>However, for music -- where the bands mostly exist to play live and have fun, where the record itself is really just a form of marketing of their live performance, and where the technical ability to produce recordings of quality and distribute them directly to fans who will then come to their shows is now within the reach of just about everyone, then direct distribution without much filter makes more sense.  However, poets and authors tend not make their money from live recitation but from the printed book itself, and the services of the publishers and distributers there are therefor more necessary and valuable.  As someone who writes a lot, submits a lot, gets accepted rarely, and who has been in a few bands, played shows and cut a couple of demos I can see the difference, it is what it is, and I'm totally cool with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and " filtering " services .
Editorially , they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically ( grammar , spelling , etc ) correct and engaging as possible .
As for filtering , they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet , and why for those who create content , being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued .
Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet , but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap does n't flood the actual shelves.For certain types of content , such as text books and works of history , philosophy , and journalism the effect this has can go either way in how people , including myself , are willing to weigh benefits vs detractions .
Certainly , it would be better if this content was more democratically available -- however , facts still need to be checked for correctness , copy edited etc .
For works of literature , the potentially stifling affect on discourse is much more limited and even though I 've almost always been on the losing side of the submission , I 'm willing to accept the judgement of poetry and fiction editors as far as to what 's actually worth something and what is n't , as they deal in literature every day and see submissions from all kinds of sources -- and when you finally do get a piece accepted then the fact that you had to try so hard to get through the filter makes the joy of it all the greater .
That 's not really a feeling one can get on the internet where the cost of reproduction approaches zero and so there is no real reason not accept a piece , or when one can stick whatever crap they would like on their own site and eventually someone will see it.However , for music -- where the bands mostly exist to play live and have fun , where the record itself is really just a form of marketing of their live performance , and where the technical ability to produce recordings of quality and distribute them directly to fans who will then come to their shows is now within the reach of just about everyone , then direct distribution without much filter makes more sense .
However , poets and authors tend not make their money from live recitation but from the printed book itself , and the services of the publishers and distributers there are therefor more necessary and valuable .
As someone who writes a lot , submits a lot , gets accepted rarely , and who has been in a few bands , played shows and cut a couple of demos I can see the difference , it is what it is , and I 'm totally cool with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and "filtering" services.
Editorially, they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically (grammar, spelling, etc) correct and engaging as possible.
As for filtering, they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet, and why for those who create content, being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued.
Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet, but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap doesn't flood the actual shelves.For certain types of content, such as text books and works of history, philosophy, and journalism the effect this has can go either way in how people, including myself, are willing to weigh benefits vs detractions.
Certainly, it would be better if this content was more democratically available -- however, facts still need to be checked for correctness, copy edited etc.
For works of literature, the potentially stifling affect on discourse is much more limited and even though I've almost always been on the losing side of the submission, I'm willing to accept the judgement of poetry and fiction editors as far as to what's actually worth something and what isn't, as they deal in literature every day and see submissions from all kinds of sources -- and when you finally do get a piece accepted then the fact that you had to try so hard to get through the filter makes the joy of it all the greater.
That's not really a feeling one can get on the internet where the cost of reproduction approaches zero and so there is no real reason not accept a piece, or when one can stick whatever crap they would like on their own site and eventually someone will see it.However, for music -- where the bands mostly exist to play live and have fun, where the record itself is really just a form of marketing of their live performance, and where the technical ability to produce recordings of quality and distribute them directly to fans who will then come to their shows is now within the reach of just about everyone, then direct distribution without much filter makes more sense.
However, poets and authors tend not make their money from live recitation but from the printed book itself, and the services of the publishers and distributers there are therefor more necessary and valuable.
As someone who writes a lot, submits a lot, gets accepted rarely, and who has been in a few bands, played shows and cut a couple of demos I can see the difference, it is what it is, and I'm totally cool with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995300</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Pastis</author>
	<datestamp>1265126460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you think that new books are directly converted into digital, instead of being printed and OCRed ?</p><p>Where are the costs ? Some trillion computer cycles ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think that new books are directly converted into digital , instead of being printed and OCRed ? Where are the costs ?
Some trillion computer cycles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think that new books are directly converted into digital, instead of being printed and OCRed ?Where are the costs ?
Some trillion computer cycles ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995278</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1265126340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's competition bringing the prices<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... up, apparently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's competition bringing the prices ... up , apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's competition bringing the prices ... up, apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003816</id>
	<title>Re:It seems to me that was what Amazon was saying.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265119740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Amazon are the good guys for pulling a massive number of products from their store, unannounced? No explanation to either customers or suppliers, they just delete titles? That's a total dick move. I don't see how this can be justified as a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Amazon are the good guys for pulling a massive number of products from their store , unannounced ?
No explanation to either customers or suppliers , they just delete titles ?
That 's a total dick move .
I do n't see how this can be justified as a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Amazon are the good guys for pulling a massive number of products from their store, unannounced?
No explanation to either customers or suppliers, they just delete titles?
That's a total dick move.
I don't see how this can be justified as a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998062</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1265135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:</p></div><p>Based on current pricing, yes they are. I have a Sony eReader, and all the books I've actually wanted so far have either not been available at all or have been more expensive than dead tree versions, even after P&amp;P. Sometimes a <em>lot</em> more expensive. Publisher's are <em>already</em> charging $14.99 and more for eBooks that have 4-year old discount paperbacks out. It seems that they figure that people who buy eReaders have more money than sense, and they can sting us again. Well, it looks like I'm caught bang to rights on the first point, but I'm not getting caught on the second. The eReader is languishing in a drawer until it becomes cost effective to buy eBooks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>riiiight , because they are going to charge $ 14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out.. : eyeroll : Based on current pricing , yes they are .
I have a Sony eReader , and all the books I 've actually wanted so far have either not been available at all or have been more expensive than dead tree versions , even after P&amp;P .
Sometimes a lot more expensive .
Publisher 's are already charging $ 14.99 and more for eBooks that have 4-year old discount paperbacks out .
It seems that they figure that people who buy eReaders have more money than sense , and they can sting us again .
Well , it looks like I 'm caught bang to rights on the first point , but I 'm not getting caught on the second .
The eReader is languishing in a drawer until it becomes cost effective to buy eBooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:Based on current pricing, yes they are.
I have a Sony eReader, and all the books I've actually wanted so far have either not been available at all or have been more expensive than dead tree versions, even after P&amp;P.
Sometimes a lot more expensive.
Publisher's are already charging $14.99 and more for eBooks that have 4-year old discount paperbacks out.
It seems that they figure that people who buy eReaders have more money than sense, and they can sting us again.
Well, it looks like I'm caught bang to rights on the first point, but I'm not getting caught on the second.
The eReader is languishing in a drawer until it becomes cost effective to buy eBooks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31005154</id>
	<title>Re:Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Coke won't let me make Coca Cola.</p></div><p>You can.  You can make a cola drink as similar as you like to Coke, provided that you use the name of your own manufacturer rather than theirs (ie, 'Coca Cola').  But if you make a book as similar as possible to, say, Harry Potter - and, unlike drinks, it's possible to reproduce a book word-for-word - and (correctly) include the name of your publisher rather than theirs, then you run up against copyright.</p><p>Yes, copyright is a monopoly on a particular product.  It's a market distortion that we deliberately introduce to compensate for the fact that free markets don't deal well with items that are expensive to make the first time, but easy to copy afterwards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coke wo n't let me make Coca Cola.You can .
You can make a cola drink as similar as you like to Coke , provided that you use the name of your own manufacturer rather than theirs ( ie , 'Coca Cola ' ) .
But if you make a book as similar as possible to , say , Harry Potter - and , unlike drinks , it 's possible to reproduce a book word-for-word - and ( correctly ) include the name of your publisher rather than theirs , then you run up against copyright.Yes , copyright is a monopoly on a particular product .
It 's a market distortion that we deliberately introduce to compensate for the fact that free markets do n't deal well with items that are expensive to make the first time , but easy to copy afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coke won't let me make Coca Cola.You can.
You can make a cola drink as similar as you like to Coke, provided that you use the name of your own manufacturer rather than theirs (ie, 'Coca Cola').
But if you make a book as similar as possible to, say, Harry Potter - and, unlike drinks, it's possible to reproduce a book word-for-word - and (correctly) include the name of your publisher rather than theirs, then you run up against copyright.Yes, copyright is a monopoly on a particular product.
It's a market distortion that we deliberately introduce to compensate for the fact that free markets don't deal well with items that are expensive to make the first time, but easy to copy afterwards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996428</id>
	<title>Will this help agains pirating E-Books?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it is now I won't get a E-Book reader becouse I'm not sure about future support of the E-Book format on future E-Book readers, and DRM stuff and all that.</p><p>Plus. Where I live I can save something like 1$ by buying an E-Book, over a Hard Cover version of the same book.<br>And now they what more for the E-Book version.</p><p>So do they raises the prise of normal books as well?<br>Or will it just be cheaper for me to get a Hard cover book. (That I can sell, og give away if I like)</p><p>So I was wondering. By setting the price so high on something that do not cost anything to price, or ship to stores.<br>Will that make people look for E-Books on sites like The Pirate Bay more or less common?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it is now I wo n't get a E-Book reader becouse I 'm not sure about future support of the E-Book format on future E-Book readers , and DRM stuff and all that.Plus .
Where I live I can save something like 1 $ by buying an E-Book , over a Hard Cover version of the same book.And now they what more for the E-Book version.So do they raises the prise of normal books as well ? Or will it just be cheaper for me to get a Hard cover book .
( That I can sell , og give away if I like ) So I was wondering .
By setting the price so high on something that do not cost anything to price , or ship to stores.Will that make people look for E-Books on sites like The Pirate Bay more or less common ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it is now I won't get a E-Book reader becouse I'm not sure about future support of the E-Book format on future E-Book readers, and DRM stuff and all that.Plus.
Where I live I can save something like 1$ by buying an E-Book, over a Hard Cover version of the same book.And now they what more for the E-Book version.So do they raises the prise of normal books as well?Or will it just be cheaper for me to get a Hard cover book.
(That I can sell, og give away if I like)So I was wondering.
By setting the price so high on something that do not cost anything to price, or ship to stores.Will that make people look for E-Books on sites like The Pirate Bay more or less common?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995314</id>
	<title>Are you guys defending AMAZON?!?!wtf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you guys seem to have forgotten that those e-book devices are riddled with DRM and other junk. Remember what happened to the e-book edition of 1984? With e-books, one person can instantly erase books that do not conform to the view of the government. Try to do that with paperbacks!</p><p>Sure, keep defending Amazon, or Apple... They're paving the way for global censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you guys seem to have forgotten that those e-book devices are riddled with DRM and other junk .
Remember what happened to the e-book edition of 1984 ?
With e-books , one person can instantly erase books that do not conform to the view of the government .
Try to do that with paperbacks ! Sure , keep defending Amazon , or Apple... They 're paving the way for global censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you guys seem to have forgotten that those e-book devices are riddled with DRM and other junk.
Remember what happened to the e-book edition of 1984?
With e-books, one person can instantly erase books that do not conform to the view of the government.
Try to do that with paperbacks!Sure, keep defending Amazon, or Apple... They're paving the way for global censorship.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996456</id>
	<title>Re:unfortunately, recently permitted in the U.S.</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1265130300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a tad different, because the books are sold in partnership with a revenue split.  I'm sure Macmillian would be happy to sell ebooks to Amazon at hardcover wholesale and let Amazon do whatever they want with the price, but the Kindle store has a fixed split between publisher and Amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a tad different , because the books are sold in partnership with a revenue split .
I 'm sure Macmillian would be happy to sell ebooks to Amazon at hardcover wholesale and let Amazon do whatever they want with the price , but the Kindle store has a fixed split between publisher and Amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a tad different, because the books are sold in partnership with a revenue split.
I'm sure Macmillian would be happy to sell ebooks to Amazon at hardcover wholesale and let Amazon do whatever they want with the price, but the Kindle store has a fixed split between publisher and Amazon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996306</id>
	<title>Do we still need publishers?</title>
	<author>mpapet</author>
	<datestamp>1265129820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans as a rule like their entertainment/political leaders to be familiar and similar.  This desire is so powerful choices are typically made that harm the individual.  For example, in order to share enjoying Californication, consumers pay Monopoly prices for subscription television then go out and pay Monopoly prices for the DVD.  These same people vote for their representatives because they come to the conclusion 'I could have a beer with this guy as President.'</p><p>So, the answer to your question is, for most people, yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans as a rule like their entertainment/political leaders to be familiar and similar .
This desire is so powerful choices are typically made that harm the individual .
For example , in order to share enjoying Californication , consumers pay Monopoly prices for subscription television then go out and pay Monopoly prices for the DVD .
These same people vote for their representatives because they come to the conclusion 'I could have a beer with this guy as President .
'So , the answer to your question is , for most people , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans as a rule like their entertainment/political leaders to be familiar and similar.
This desire is so powerful choices are typically made that harm the individual.
For example, in order to share enjoying Californication, consumers pay Monopoly prices for subscription television then go out and pay Monopoly prices for the DVD.
These same people vote for their representatives because they come to the conclusion 'I could have a beer with this guy as President.
'So, the answer to your question is, for most people, yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997882</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>jvkjvk</author>
	<datestamp>1265134980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, let me say that it will always be hard for an unknown artist to create something and get large numbers of people to experience it, whether or not a publishing house is used.  As you stated, most submitted works go nowhere.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Publishers do more than just market a book, they filter.</p></div><p>And now, there are people out there who will do the same thing, for ad revenue.  Lots of them.  The best already have a following of sorts.  Just like Oprah (used purely as an example).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The publisher wades through the 85\% crap sent in to find the 1\% of the remaining 15\% that is worth publishing</p></div><p>Why is not everything "worth" publishing, these days?  It was "worth" it for the individual to write.  With cheap digital publishing/self published material, it seeems it can be.  It still may not be "worh" reading, but who cares?  Just like the majority of web pages out there, all of which are 'published'.</p><p>You still don't have to personally wade through all that crap - you just hook yourself to a gatekeeper you trust instead of trusting publishing houses, that's all.  Although why you would ever trust a publisher is beyond me -- many times making a book with those guys is akin to making sausage (especially as a new author who has little power, never mind the 'selection process').</p><p>Every service that publishing houses used to provide to a writer can be done for less money and more efficiently outside the gates - oh, except that one special service - refusing to publish it.  However, if your work is good enough for them to publish, it is probably good enough to go another route.  Especially since you get to keep copyright that way.</p><p>It seems natural that artists should begin to choose cheaper alternatives and more effective methods to be heard. (and before anyone goes into the efficacy of the Houses, 100\% of self published works/digitally distributed works get published, what's the \% probability that *your* work will be published if submitted to a House?)  I also think a major draw for artists is that they would still be in control of their works.</p><p>These service model for business imparied artists already exists, although many of them are a bit sketchy.  Given another ten years, though and the network effect will begin to rear it's head.  The ecosystem will have evolved, we will have well established review sites that review self/digitally published works in addition to traditional publishers, we'll have some reputable service providers for the business and fine tuning aspects (editors, marketers) and 'self' publishing will be more respected (as opposed to being labeled a vanity).  A buy recommendation of an unknown author is likely to generate major sales, especially if reviewed positively on multiple sites.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end rant on publishing...</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , let me say that it will always be hard for an unknown artist to create something and get large numbers of people to experience it , whether or not a publishing house is used .
As you stated , most submitted works go nowhere.Publishers do more than just market a book , they filter.And now , there are people out there who will do the same thing , for ad revenue .
Lots of them .
The best already have a following of sorts .
Just like Oprah ( used purely as an example ) .The publisher wades through the 85 \ % crap sent in to find the 1 \ % of the remaining 15 \ % that is worth publishingWhy is not everything " worth " publishing , these days ?
It was " worth " it for the individual to write .
With cheap digital publishing/self published material , it seeems it can be .
It still may not be " worh " reading , but who cares ?
Just like the majority of web pages out there , all of which are 'published'.You still do n't have to personally wade through all that crap - you just hook yourself to a gatekeeper you trust instead of trusting publishing houses , that 's all .
Although why you would ever trust a publisher is beyond me -- many times making a book with those guys is akin to making sausage ( especially as a new author who has little power , never mind the 'selection process ' ) .Every service that publishing houses used to provide to a writer can be done for less money and more efficiently outside the gates - oh , except that one special service - refusing to publish it .
However , if your work is good enough for them to publish , it is probably good enough to go another route .
Especially since you get to keep copyright that way.It seems natural that artists should begin to choose cheaper alternatives and more effective methods to be heard .
( and before anyone goes into the efficacy of the Houses , 100 \ % of self published works/digitally distributed works get published , what 's the \ % probability that * your * work will be published if submitted to a House ?
) I also think a major draw for artists is that they would still be in control of their works.These service model for business imparied artists already exists , although many of them are a bit sketchy .
Given another ten years , though and the network effect will begin to rear it 's head .
The ecosystem will have evolved , we will have well established review sites that review self/digitally published works in addition to traditional publishers , we 'll have some reputable service providers for the business and fine tuning aspects ( editors , marketers ) and 'self ' publishing will be more respected ( as opposed to being labeled a vanity ) .
A buy recommendation of an unknown author is likely to generate major sales , especially if reviewed positively on multiple sites .
/end rant on publishing.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, let me say that it will always be hard for an unknown artist to create something and get large numbers of people to experience it, whether or not a publishing house is used.
As you stated, most submitted works go nowhere.Publishers do more than just market a book, they filter.And now, there are people out there who will do the same thing, for ad revenue.
Lots of them.
The best already have a following of sorts.
Just like Oprah (used purely as an example).The publisher wades through the 85\% crap sent in to find the 1\% of the remaining 15\% that is worth publishingWhy is not everything "worth" publishing, these days?
It was "worth" it for the individual to write.
With cheap digital publishing/self published material, it seeems it can be.
It still may not be "worh" reading, but who cares?
Just like the majority of web pages out there, all of which are 'published'.You still don't have to personally wade through all that crap - you just hook yourself to a gatekeeper you trust instead of trusting publishing houses, that's all.
Although why you would ever trust a publisher is beyond me -- many times making a book with those guys is akin to making sausage (especially as a new author who has little power, never mind the 'selection process').Every service that publishing houses used to provide to a writer can be done for less money and more efficiently outside the gates - oh, except that one special service - refusing to publish it.
However, if your work is good enough for them to publish, it is probably good enough to go another route.
Especially since you get to keep copyright that way.It seems natural that artists should begin to choose cheaper alternatives and more effective methods to be heard.
(and before anyone goes into the efficacy of the Houses, 100\% of self published works/digitally distributed works get published, what's the \% probability that *your* work will be published if submitted to a House?
)  I also think a major draw for artists is that they would still be in control of their works.These service model for business imparied artists already exists, although many of them are a bit sketchy.
Given another ten years, though and the network effect will begin to rear it's head.
The ecosystem will have evolved, we will have well established review sites that review self/digitally published works in addition to traditional publishers, we'll have some reputable service providers for the business and fine tuning aspects (editors, marketers) and 'self' publishing will be more respected (as opposed to being labeled a vanity).
A buy recommendation of an unknown author is likely to generate major sales, especially if reviewed positively on multiple sites.
/end rant on publishing...
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997046</id>
	<title>Re:Why Publishers Exist</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265132340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and "filtering" services. Editorially, they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically (grammar, spelling, etc) correct and engaging as possible. As for filtering, they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet, and why for those who create content, being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued. Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet, but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap doesn't flood the actual shelves.</p></div><p>WRONG. The publishers are in it for the money. They are no different from anyone else in this regard. The editors and literary professionals may see their mission as you describe it but if a publisher thinks they can make a buck off a Sarah Palin biography, it'll be ghoswritten and printed faster than you can say "remainder."</p><p>I do like your ideal world, though. Publishers are in the printing and book distribution business only because that's a necessary step towards getting paid. But if they can handle most of the distribution electronically, all of those costs go down and the books should be cheaper.</p><p>If California wine had to be shipped cross-country by wagon or mule, it would be thousands of dollars a bottle. That sort of shipping is costly and inefficient Shipping by train and truck reduces the cost a great deal. Any winery that tries to charge mule-shipped prices for something that came by train is just trying to scam us.</p><p>It's all about setting ridiculous price points. Netflix can blow Blockbuster away with depth of selection and avoiding the cost of physical stores. Renting from blockbuster is I think still $4 a movie. (haven't been in years.) They have dollar dvd kiosks in the grocery store now. Buck a day for a first-run movie. Meanwhile, Microsoft is still charging $4 for the same movies on Xbox. That has to be even cheaper than the kiosk stores and there's far less physical infrastructure compared with Netflix and their shipping facilities. Microsoft prices at what they think they can get away with, not cost plus 30. I think it's too much and thus have never rented from them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and " filtering " services .
Editorially , they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically ( grammar , spelling , etc ) correct and engaging as possible .
As for filtering , they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet , and why for those who create content , being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued .
Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet , but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap does n't flood the actual shelves.WRONG .
The publishers are in it for the money .
They are no different from anyone else in this regard .
The editors and literary professionals may see their mission as you describe it but if a publisher thinks they can make a buck off a Sarah Palin biography , it 'll be ghoswritten and printed faster than you can say " remainder .
" I do like your ideal world , though .
Publishers are in the printing and book distribution business only because that 's a necessary step towards getting paid .
But if they can handle most of the distribution electronically , all of those costs go down and the books should be cheaper.If California wine had to be shipped cross-country by wagon or mule , it would be thousands of dollars a bottle .
That sort of shipping is costly and inefficient Shipping by train and truck reduces the cost a great deal .
Any winery that tries to charge mule-shipped prices for something that came by train is just trying to scam us.It 's all about setting ridiculous price points .
Netflix can blow Blockbuster away with depth of selection and avoiding the cost of physical stores .
Renting from blockbuster is I think still $ 4 a movie .
( have n't been in years .
) They have dollar dvd kiosks in the grocery store now .
Buck a day for a first-run movie .
Meanwhile , Microsoft is still charging $ 4 for the same movies on Xbox .
That has to be even cheaper than the kiosk stores and there 's far less physical infrastructure compared with Netflix and their shipping facilities .
Microsoft prices at what they think they can get away with , not cost plus 30 .
I think it 's too much and thus have never rented from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishers still exist largely because of their editorial and "filtering" services.
Editorially, they help to ensure that the best possible version of a text makes it to market -- that it is as technically (grammar, spelling, etc) correct and engaging as possible.
As for filtering, they are meant to ensure that only works that have a reasonable degree of merit actually make it to market -- this is why people tend to believe printed word over that which they find on the internet, and why for those who create content, being accepted by a publisher for print production is highly valued.
Anyone can put whatever crap they like on the internet, but the publishing industry exists to make sure that random crap doesn't flood the actual shelves.WRONG.
The publishers are in it for the money.
They are no different from anyone else in this regard.
The editors and literary professionals may see their mission as you describe it but if a publisher thinks they can make a buck off a Sarah Palin biography, it'll be ghoswritten and printed faster than you can say "remainder.
"I do like your ideal world, though.
Publishers are in the printing and book distribution business only because that's a necessary step towards getting paid.
But if they can handle most of the distribution electronically, all of those costs go down and the books should be cheaper.If California wine had to be shipped cross-country by wagon or mule, it would be thousands of dollars a bottle.
That sort of shipping is costly and inefficient Shipping by train and truck reduces the cost a great deal.
Any winery that tries to charge mule-shipped prices for something that came by train is just trying to scam us.It's all about setting ridiculous price points.
Netflix can blow Blockbuster away with depth of selection and avoiding the cost of physical stores.
Renting from blockbuster is I think still $4 a movie.
(haven't been in years.
) They have dollar dvd kiosks in the grocery store now.
Buck a day for a first-run movie.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is still charging $4 for the same movies on Xbox.
That has to be even cheaper than the kiosk stores and there's far less physical infrastructure compared with Netflix and their shipping facilities.
Microsoft prices at what they think they can get away with, not cost plus 30.
I think it's too much and thus have never rented from them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996596</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>bobby22</author>
	<datestamp>1265130780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No Spamming, even for girls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No Spamming , even for girls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No Spamming, even for girls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995544</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its always pakis who spam their shitty blogs on slashdot. Its even funnier that you call yourself a software engineer, I've never met an indian who was anything but a terribly uninspired meat and potatoes coder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its always pakis who spam their shitty blogs on slashdot .
Its even funnier that you call yourself a software engineer , I 've never met an indian who was anything but a terribly uninspired meat and potatoes coder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its always pakis who spam their shitty blogs on slashdot.
Its even funnier that you call yourself a software engineer, I've never met an indian who was anything but a terribly uninspired meat and potatoes coder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995940</id>
	<title>Re:There's a difference between books and music...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265128680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fiction, I'd much rather read Heinlein than an imitator of Heinlein.</p></div><p>I'd say it depends on the imitator. Would you shun <i>Neverwhere</i> just because it resembles <i>Glory Road</i>? But otherwise yes, you have a point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fiction , I 'd much rather read Heinlein than an imitator of Heinlein.I 'd say it depends on the imitator .
Would you shun Neverwhere just because it resembles Glory Road ?
But otherwise yes , you have a point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fiction, I'd much rather read Heinlein than an imitator of Heinlein.I'd say it depends on the imitator.
Would you shun Neverwhere just because it resembles Glory Road?
But otherwise yes, you have a point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104</id>
	<title>Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. It's their product.  Waah, Coke won't let me make Coca Cola.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
It 's their product .
Waah , Coke wo n't let me make Coca Cola .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
It's their product.
Waah, Coke won't let me make Coca Cola.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995398</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1265126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok very important, price to produce has very little to do with final price to consumer, it will influence the minimum price the publisher will accept but that is about it.  Books are valuable and thus can be sold as if they are valuable because well they are.  With low barrier to entry costs more publishers should enter the market but that is a slightly different issue.  If the publisher has no right to unreasonable profit from his work why do you?  Imagine a book is free to produce, no cost what so ever, does that mean the publisher should give you the book?  Even if you gain say $20 from the book either directly or indirectly your enjoyment etc?  If he should then you are making $20 with no effort and if the book is sold for $20 you make no profit and the publisher makes $20 of profit you get the book for what you valued it at.  The real problem here is that amazon is a nationwide retailer allowing for everyone to go there and get the book for bare minimum price lowering the price and profit to publisher, who does do some work and same goes for movie and music industry, and in the end more people buy the product for less than what they value it at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok very important , price to produce has very little to do with final price to consumer , it will influence the minimum price the publisher will accept but that is about it .
Books are valuable and thus can be sold as if they are valuable because well they are .
With low barrier to entry costs more publishers should enter the market but that is a slightly different issue .
If the publisher has no right to unreasonable profit from his work why do you ?
Imagine a book is free to produce , no cost what so ever , does that mean the publisher should give you the book ?
Even if you gain say $ 20 from the book either directly or indirectly your enjoyment etc ?
If he should then you are making $ 20 with no effort and if the book is sold for $ 20 you make no profit and the publisher makes $ 20 of profit you get the book for what you valued it at .
The real problem here is that amazon is a nationwide retailer allowing for everyone to go there and get the book for bare minimum price lowering the price and profit to publisher , who does do some work and same goes for movie and music industry , and in the end more people buy the product for less than what they value it at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok very important, price to produce has very little to do with final price to consumer, it will influence the minimum price the publisher will accept but that is about it.
Books are valuable and thus can be sold as if they are valuable because well they are.
With low barrier to entry costs more publishers should enter the market but that is a slightly different issue.
If the publisher has no right to unreasonable profit from his work why do you?
Imagine a book is free to produce, no cost what so ever, does that mean the publisher should give you the book?
Even if you gain say $20 from the book either directly or indirectly your enjoyment etc?
If he should then you are making $20 with no effort and if the book is sold for $20 you make no profit and the publisher makes $20 of profit you get the book for what you valued it at.
The real problem here is that amazon is a nationwide retailer allowing for everyone to go there and get the book for bare minimum price lowering the price and profit to publisher, who does do some work and same goes for movie and music industry, and in the end more people buy the product for less than what they value it at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996038</id>
	<title>You have a choice</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265128920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want a textbook, don't buy one, and try and google it.  But writing a good technical text is a heck of a lot of work, as any of us that blows off documentation knows.  People won't do it for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want a textbook , do n't buy one , and try and google it .
But writing a good technical text is a heck of a lot of work , as any of us that blows off documentation knows .
People wo n't do it for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want a textbook, don't buy one, and try and google it.
But writing a good technical text is a heck of a lot of work, as any of us that blows off documentation knows.
People won't do it for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996988</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>a42</author>
	<datestamp>1265132220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that screwing over the public? You want to wait, wait.</p><p>FYI, the <i>authors</i> make much, much more on the hardback version -- a higher percentage of a higher price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that screwing over the public ?
You want to wait , wait.FYI , the authors make much , much more on the hardback version -- a higher percentage of a higher price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that screwing over the public?
You want to wait, wait.FYI, the authors make much, much more on the hardback version -- a higher percentage of a higher price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995556</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the free market works, though, prevailing prices should relate to cost in the long run, since the equilibrium price of a competitive market is cost plus a reasonable profit ("reasonable profit" being the minimum profit needed to keep suppliers from exiting the business).</p></div><p>And a government-mandated monopoly on distribution (aka 'copyright') is about as far from a free market as you can get short of having the government itself distribute all the books. The whole point of copyright is to maintain profits above free market levels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the free market works , though , prevailing prices should relate to cost in the long run , since the equilibrium price of a competitive market is cost plus a reasonable profit ( " reasonable profit " being the minimum profit needed to keep suppliers from exiting the business ) .And a government-mandated monopoly on distribution ( aka 'copyright ' ) is about as far from a free market as you can get short of having the government itself distribute all the books .
The whole point of copyright is to maintain profits above free market levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the free market works, though, prevailing prices should relate to cost in the long run, since the equilibrium price of a competitive market is cost plus a reasonable profit ("reasonable profit" being the minimum profit needed to keep suppliers from exiting the business).And a government-mandated monopoly on distribution (aka 'copyright') is about as far from a free market as you can get short of having the government itself distribute all the books.
The whole point of copyright is to maintain profits above free market levels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001852</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1265108700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't buy the trade format if the same book is available as a standard paperback.  Nor will I buy an ebook if it costs more than a standard paperback.  Heck, if a book is only available in trade format, I'd rather buy the hardback or not buy it at all.</p><p>I'm buying the words, not the container.  If I wanted to buy the container, I'd buy in hardback and get them recovered in leather.</p><p>And just because I dropped $250 on a reader doesn't mean I'm willing to pay more for ebooks.  If anything, it means I'd rather pay less for ebooks because I'm amortizing the hardware over all the books I buy.  If the hardware was free(e.g. I used my phone or laptop), then I'd at best pay the same as paper should I consider the convenience equal to what I think the publisher is saving by not printing/storing/etc the hardcopy.</p><p>But, despite what I said above, I like hardcopy, so my convenience "cost" isn't very large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't buy the trade format if the same book is available as a standard paperback .
Nor will I buy an ebook if it costs more than a standard paperback .
Heck , if a book is only available in trade format , I 'd rather buy the hardback or not buy it at all.I 'm buying the words , not the container .
If I wanted to buy the container , I 'd buy in hardback and get them recovered in leather.And just because I dropped $ 250 on a reader does n't mean I 'm willing to pay more for ebooks .
If anything , it means I 'd rather pay less for ebooks because I 'm amortizing the hardware over all the books I buy .
If the hardware was free ( e.g .
I used my phone or laptop ) , then I 'd at best pay the same as paper should I consider the convenience equal to what I think the publisher is saving by not printing/storing/etc the hardcopy.But , despite what I said above , I like hardcopy , so my convenience " cost " is n't very large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't buy the trade format if the same book is available as a standard paperback.
Nor will I buy an ebook if it costs more than a standard paperback.
Heck, if a book is only available in trade format, I'd rather buy the hardback or not buy it at all.I'm buying the words, not the container.
If I wanted to buy the container, I'd buy in hardback and get them recovered in leather.And just because I dropped $250 on a reader doesn't mean I'm willing to pay more for ebooks.
If anything, it means I'd rather pay less for ebooks because I'm amortizing the hardware over all the books I buy.
If the hardware was free(e.g.
I used my phone or laptop), then I'd at best pay the same as paper should I consider the convenience equal to what I think the publisher is saving by not printing/storing/etc the hardcopy.But, despite what I said above, I like hardcopy, so my convenience "cost" isn't very large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996270</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OCR Scanning?</p><p>You do know that it is common just to send an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf file to the print shop that prints the books.<br>So why print it and the scan it in again, when you allready have the book digital.<br>They just convert it to some E-Book format and sell it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OCR Scanning ? You do know that it is common just to send an .pdf file to the print shop that prints the books.So why print it and the scan it in again , when you allready have the book digital.They just convert it to some E-Book format and sell it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OCR Scanning?You do know that it is common just to send an .pdf file to the print shop that prints the books.So why print it and the scan it in again, when you allready have the book digital.They just convert it to some E-Book format and sell it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996014</id>
	<title>Re:unfortunately, recently permitted in the U.S.</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1265128860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if Macmillan had no direct control over what price their books retailed at, the wholesale price they offer would certainly force Amazon to sell Macmillan's books at some reasonable markup over that, if they sold them at all.  Amazon certainly cannot sell a $12 wholesale book for $9.99 - not if they expect to make a profit, at any rate.</p><p>Now if Macmillan was prohibiting retailers like Amazon from selling their e-books for less than $15.99 that would be a more serious issue.  I am not sure that is the case here though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if Macmillan had no direct control over what price their books retailed at , the wholesale price they offer would certainly force Amazon to sell Macmillan 's books at some reasonable markup over that , if they sold them at all .
Amazon certainly can not sell a $ 12 wholesale book for $ 9.99 - not if they expect to make a profit , at any rate.Now if Macmillan was prohibiting retailers like Amazon from selling their e-books for less than $ 15.99 that would be a more serious issue .
I am not sure that is the case here though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if Macmillan had no direct control over what price their books retailed at, the wholesale price they offer would certainly force Amazon to sell Macmillan's books at some reasonable markup over that, if they sold them at all.
Amazon certainly cannot sell a $12 wholesale book for $9.99 - not if they expect to make a profit, at any rate.Now if Macmillan was prohibiting retailers like Amazon from selling their e-books for less than $15.99 that would be a more serious issue.
I am not sure that is the case here though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995188</id>
	<title>anyone can publish</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1265126040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the trick is getting noticed and having someone find your content. and if you want access to a professional recording studio you need to have a lot of cash upfront that a record company normally pays for. in exchange for tiny royalties on your CD's the record company takes a big risk on you and invests  a lot of money to produce an album and market it. same goes for touring. it takes so much upfront cash to go on tour that you need someone like LiveNation to take a risk.</p><p>Look at Lady Gaga. very talented. she got into Juliard but had to go to another music school. but then got into the NYU music school. playing music since she was 4. Took Akon to get her noticed and invest the money to produce her music professionally. she could have uploaded something she recorded herself to iTunes without any marketing but then she wouldn't be singing at the Grammy's with Elton John.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the trick is getting noticed and having someone find your content .
and if you want access to a professional recording studio you need to have a lot of cash upfront that a record company normally pays for .
in exchange for tiny royalties on your CD 's the record company takes a big risk on you and invests a lot of money to produce an album and market it .
same goes for touring .
it takes so much upfront cash to go on tour that you need someone like LiveNation to take a risk.Look at Lady Gaga .
very talented .
she got into Juliard but had to go to another music school .
but then got into the NYU music school .
playing music since she was 4 .
Took Akon to get her noticed and invest the money to produce her music professionally .
she could have uploaded something she recorded herself to iTunes without any marketing but then she would n't be singing at the Grammy 's with Elton John .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the trick is getting noticed and having someone find your content.
and if you want access to a professional recording studio you need to have a lot of cash upfront that a record company normally pays for.
in exchange for tiny royalties on your CD's the record company takes a big risk on you and invests  a lot of money to produce an album and market it.
same goes for touring.
it takes so much upfront cash to go on tour that you need someone like LiveNation to take a risk.Look at Lady Gaga.
very talented.
she got into Juliard but had to go to another music school.
but then got into the NYU music school.
playing music since she was 4.
Took Akon to get her noticed and invest the money to produce her music professionally.
she could have uploaded something she recorded herself to iTunes without any marketing but then she wouldn't be singing at the Grammy's with Elton John.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</id>
	<title>What's the marginal cost of production on an ebook</title>
	<author>Phyrexicaid</author>
	<datestamp>1265125380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh that's right, zero.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh that 's right , zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh that's right, zero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000040</id>
	<title>Re:I work at a University Press</title>
	<author>oshkrozz</author>
	<datestamp>1265143440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And must have failed math<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

if the cost is 30\% to print<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. you can charge 30\% less for the book in e-book form that seems like a rather simple conversion however that logic escaped your whole rant that should have summed it all up.
It costs us $2 to print a book so we can charge $2 less not probably, but most definitely, However, we want to increase our margin and reduce our cost just like any company looking for a profit.  Furthermore your message fails to take into account the charge backs (what happens when amazon can't sell all their books?), shipping costs, storage and other costs in keeping around a book, amazon needs a huge climate controlled warehouse, there are tucks and trains that have to be paid to move everything from you to them to the customer all these costs add up even if it is a small amount per book cost here and then it can add $1 - $2 quickly.  Just the number of hands it has to pass through.

In short<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. almost \%50 savings right off the bat and wow look at that an e-book that is significantly cheaper then the paper version

As for formats, if you didn't put DRM on it and used an open format<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well guess what the format would be readable for a long long time and you saved the cost of not buying DRM.  (Last I checked PDF is still very readable by most devices, ASCII even more so).</htmltext>
<tokenext>And must have failed math .. . if the cost is 30 \ % to print .. you can charge 30 \ % less for the book in e-book form that seems like a rather simple conversion however that logic escaped your whole rant that should have summed it all up .
It costs us $ 2 to print a book so we can charge $ 2 less not probably , but most definitely , However , we want to increase our margin and reduce our cost just like any company looking for a profit .
Furthermore your message fails to take into account the charge backs ( what happens when amazon ca n't sell all their books ?
) , shipping costs , storage and other costs in keeping around a book , amazon needs a huge climate controlled warehouse , there are tucks and trains that have to be paid to move everything from you to them to the customer all these costs add up even if it is a small amount per book cost here and then it can add $ 1 - $ 2 quickly .
Just the number of hands it has to pass through .
In short .. almost \ % 50 savings right off the bat and wow look at that an e-book that is significantly cheaper then the paper version As for formats , if you did n't put DRM on it and used an open format ... well guess what the format would be readable for a long long time and you saved the cost of not buying DRM .
( Last I checked PDF is still very readable by most devices , ASCII even more so ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And must have failed math ...

if the cost is 30\% to print .. you can charge 30\% less for the book in e-book form that seems like a rather simple conversion however that logic escaped your whole rant that should have summed it all up.
It costs us $2 to print a book so we can charge $2 less not probably, but most definitely, However, we want to increase our margin and reduce our cost just like any company looking for a profit.
Furthermore your message fails to take into account the charge backs (what happens when amazon can't sell all their books?
), shipping costs, storage and other costs in keeping around a book, amazon needs a huge climate controlled warehouse, there are tucks and trains that have to be paid to move everything from you to them to the customer all these costs add up even if it is a small amount per book cost here and then it can add $1 - $2 quickly.
Just the number of hands it has to pass through.
In short .. almost \%50 savings right off the bat and wow look at that an e-book that is significantly cheaper then the paper version

As for formats, if you didn't put DRM on it and used an open format ... well guess what the format would be readable for a long long time and you saved the cost of not buying DRM.
(Last I checked PDF is still very readable by most devices, ASCII even more so).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996168</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon bows, I won't. Boycott greedy publishers</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1265129340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better solution:  Don't buy anything from Amazon.  They are trying to lock publishers into DRMed formats and leverage that into a monopoly on ebook distribution.  Amazon is trying to cement themselves as a middleman so they can siphon outrageous profit off of other peoples' work.  (They forced publishers to agree to give Amazon 70\% markup on ebooks!  The one who ends up getting screwed, of course, is the author.)</p><p>The internet is about removing middlemen.  Don't patronize Amazon or they'll become one that will never go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better solution : Do n't buy anything from Amazon .
They are trying to lock publishers into DRMed formats and leverage that into a monopoly on ebook distribution .
Amazon is trying to cement themselves as a middleman so they can siphon outrageous profit off of other peoples ' work .
( They forced publishers to agree to give Amazon 70 \ % markup on ebooks !
The one who ends up getting screwed , of course , is the author .
) The internet is about removing middlemen .
Do n't patronize Amazon or they 'll become one that will never go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better solution:  Don't buy anything from Amazon.
They are trying to lock publishers into DRMed formats and leverage that into a monopoly on ebook distribution.
Amazon is trying to cement themselves as a middleman so they can siphon outrageous profit off of other peoples' work.
(They forced publishers to agree to give Amazon 70\% markup on ebooks!
The one who ends up getting screwed, of course, is the author.
)The internet is about removing middlemen.
Don't patronize Amazon or they'll become one that will never go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336</id>
	<title>From that bastion of Right Wing Capitalism</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1265126580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/technology/apple/index.html?story=/books/laura\_miller/2010/02/01/macmillan\_vs\_amazon" title="salon.com">Salon.com</a> [salon.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper, printing, binding and shipping/distribution. However, only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs: about $5 out of $25. Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent, and after that, the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties, editing, design, marketing, publicity, overhead and so on.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Salon.com [ salon.com ] Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper , printing , binding and shipping/distribution .
However , only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs : about $ 5 out of $ 25 .
Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent , and after that , the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties , editing , design , marketing , publicity , overhead and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Salon.com [salon.com] Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper, printing, binding and shipping/distribution.
However, only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs: about $5 out of $25.
Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent, and after that, the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties, editing, design, marketing, publicity, overhead and so on.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31020132</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>elizabethje</author>
	<datestamp>1265279160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks a lot. Will take care of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot .
Will take care of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot.
Will take care of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995714</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265128020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are fixed costs.</p><p>I do agree that there needs to be compensation for them though. There are lots of worthwhile books that are the result of financial compensation rather than passion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are fixed costs.I do agree that there needs to be compensation for them though .
There are lots of worthwhile books that are the result of financial compensation rather than passion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are fixed costs.I do agree that there needs to be compensation for them though.
There are lots of worthwhile books that are the result of financial compensation rather than passion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995786</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would pay extra for ebooks if I have to. I want all my books on one device. I want to be able to search. I want all the other advantages of ebooks.</p><p>The pricing of media has nothing to do with distribution costs, and everything to do with "how much will people pay?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would pay extra for ebooks if I have to .
I want all my books on one device .
I want to be able to search .
I want all the other advantages of ebooks.The pricing of media has nothing to do with distribution costs , and everything to do with " how much will people pay ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would pay extra for ebooks if I have to.
I want all my books on one device.
I want to be able to search.
I want all the other advantages of ebooks.The pricing of media has nothing to do with distribution costs, and everything to do with "how much will people pay?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995178</id>
	<title>It seems to me that was what Amazon was saying.</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1265125980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as in, we want to still offer their products even though we know they are overpriced.  We give you the choice, choose correctly.</p><p>Honestly, the iPad was designed to bring Apple and their publishing buddies more money.  After Steve got us off the 99cent model anything was possible. There was too much money on the table.  Books presented a new avenue for increasing revenue as their is no such thing as "per chapter".  They can charge you more and make you feel as if your getting something special in the experience.</p><p>Kudo's to Amazon for calling it like it is.  I understand why they gave in, it really does come down to the public making the choice.  Unfortunately far too many will make the wrong choice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as in , we want to still offer their products even though we know they are overpriced .
We give you the choice , choose correctly.Honestly , the iPad was designed to bring Apple and their publishing buddies more money .
After Steve got us off the 99cent model anything was possible .
There was too much money on the table .
Books presented a new avenue for increasing revenue as their is no such thing as " per chapter " .
They can charge you more and make you feel as if your getting something special in the experience.Kudo 's to Amazon for calling it like it is .
I understand why they gave in , it really does come down to the public making the choice .
Unfortunately far too many will make the wrong choice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as in, we want to still offer their products even though we know they are overpriced.
We give you the choice, choose correctly.Honestly, the iPad was designed to bring Apple and their publishing buddies more money.
After Steve got us off the 99cent model anything was possible.
There was too much money on the table.
Books presented a new avenue for increasing revenue as their is no such thing as "per chapter".
They can charge you more and make you feel as if your getting something special in the experience.Kudo's to Amazon for calling it like it is.
I understand why they gave in, it really does come down to the public making the choice.
Unfortunately far too many will make the wrong choice</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995312</id>
	<title>Why, you ask?</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1265126520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet?</p></div><p>Because nobody has yet invented the book equivalent of "a ubiquitous drive which will read the raw data at high speed with 100\% accuracy (or as near as makes no difference) without damaging the storage medium".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet ? Because nobody has yet invented the book equivalent of " a ubiquitous drive which will read the raw data at high speed with 100 \ % accuracy ( or as near as makes no difference ) without damaging the storage medium " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do these dinosaur publishing businesses still manage to thrive despite the Internet?Because nobody has yet invented the book equivalent of "a ubiquitous drive which will read the raw data at high speed with 100\% accuracy (or as near as makes no difference) without damaging the storage medium".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996208</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>kaizendojo</author>
	<datestamp>1265129520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In most cases OCR isn't even involved.  Today's books are all typeset, printed and in most cases composed via computer.  These new books are already digital to begin with.  So it's merely an excuse to price eBooks out of existence because publishers are afraid of losing revenue to the vague spectre of "pirating".</htmltext>
<tokenext>In most cases OCR is n't even involved .
Today 's books are all typeset , printed and in most cases composed via computer .
These new books are already digital to begin with .
So it 's merely an excuse to price eBooks out of existence because publishers are afraid of losing revenue to the vague spectre of " pirating " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most cases OCR isn't even involved.
Today's books are all typeset, printed and in most cases composed via computer.
These new books are already digital to begin with.
So it's merely an excuse to price eBooks out of existence because publishers are afraid of losing revenue to the vague spectre of "pirating".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265126280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, in the same way they fuck over the general public with Hardback first and Paperback later versions.</p><p>Here in PH, we've been waiting over six months for the paperback version of Dan Brown's latest work, and all the time a massive pile of unsold hardbacks is gathering dust in the bookshop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , in the same way they fuck over the general public with Hardback first and Paperback later versions.Here in PH , we 've been waiting over six months for the paperback version of Dan Brown 's latest work , and all the time a massive pile of unsold hardbacks is gathering dust in the bookshop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, in the same way they fuck over the general public with Hardback first and Paperback later versions.Here in PH, we've been waiting over six months for the paperback version of Dan Brown's latest work, and all the time a massive pile of unsold hardbacks is gathering dust in the bookshop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000292</id>
	<title>Yes, publishers are obsolete for ebooks</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1265101260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Editors however are very much not obsolete.  Automated spelling and grammar correction covers only a small portion of an editors job, well their core job is identifying places where the author loses readers and/or material that should be removed from the book.</p><p>I'll observe however that many many good editors actually work freelance, just like authors.  The publishing world could be massively optimized by small publishers that focus only upon selecting the material and pairing manuscripts with freelance editors.  It might even be that overhead could be further reduced by paying editors on commission, just like authors.</p><p>Society should set itself the goal of reducing the take of middle men that contribute little besides selection or publicity, this covers both publishers like Macmillan, online distributors like Amazon, and brick&amp;mortar distributors like Barnes&amp;Noble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Editors however are very much not obsolete .
Automated spelling and grammar correction covers only a small portion of an editors job , well their core job is identifying places where the author loses readers and/or material that should be removed from the book.I 'll observe however that many many good editors actually work freelance , just like authors .
The publishing world could be massively optimized by small publishers that focus only upon selecting the material and pairing manuscripts with freelance editors .
It might even be that overhead could be further reduced by paying editors on commission , just like authors.Society should set itself the goal of reducing the take of middle men that contribute little besides selection or publicity , this covers both publishers like Macmillan , online distributors like Amazon , and brick&amp;mortar distributors like Barnes&amp;Noble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Editors however are very much not obsolete.
Automated spelling and grammar correction covers only a small portion of an editors job, well their core job is identifying places where the author loses readers and/or material that should be removed from the book.I'll observe however that many many good editors actually work freelance, just like authors.
The publishing world could be massively optimized by small publishers that focus only upon selecting the material and pairing manuscripts with freelance editors.
It might even be that overhead could be further reduced by paying editors on commission, just like authors.Society should set itself the goal of reducing the take of middle men that contribute little besides selection or publicity, this covers both publishers like Macmillan, online distributors like Amazon, and brick&amp;mortar distributors like Barnes&amp;Noble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995588</id>
	<title>Re:Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265127540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a ploy by the major publishers to force Amazon back to the negotiation table. They push them to raise the prices to make ebooks look unattractive, and having customers either buy the dead tree version or go to another ebook distributor who has a more favorable deal with Macmillan. Macmillan wants a bigger cut of the sales and perhaps more restrictive DRM and other publishers will smell blood and jump all over this after watching how Macmillan plays it. Don't under estimate old media and their infinitely copyright cheat codes. They have the money, the lawyers, and the right sons of bitches running these places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a ploy by the major publishers to force Amazon back to the negotiation table .
They push them to raise the prices to make ebooks look unattractive , and having customers either buy the dead tree version or go to another ebook distributor who has a more favorable deal with Macmillan .
Macmillan wants a bigger cut of the sales and perhaps more restrictive DRM and other publishers will smell blood and jump all over this after watching how Macmillan plays it .
Do n't under estimate old media and their infinitely copyright cheat codes .
They have the money , the lawyers , and the right sons of bitches running these places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a ploy by the major publishers to force Amazon back to the negotiation table.
They push them to raise the prices to make ebooks look unattractive, and having customers either buy the dead tree version or go to another ebook distributor who has a more favorable deal with Macmillan.
Macmillan wants a bigger cut of the sales and perhaps more restrictive DRM and other publishers will smell blood and jump all over this after watching how Macmillan plays it.
Don't under estimate old media and their infinitely copyright cheat codes.
They have the money, the lawyers, and the right sons of bitches running these places.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001608</id>
	<title>Re:It's a little more complicated</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1265107500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we seill need publishers.  I'm not totally clear about how publishers should change.  (Optimality from the views of the author, publisher, and reader are very different!)</p><p>I'm much less sure we need Amazon.  Amazon is like a large department store, but if you've been watching, that kind of store is either doing poorly or depending on what is essentially slave labor.)  They could be replaced by a combination of Google and the publishers/vendors.  Currently their existence is subsidized by the trust they people put in them to handle credit cards honestly. (My personal perspective + projection of my views onto others.  I could easily be wrong here.)  It's also subsidized by the credit card companies charging big companies lower rates.</p><p>There's a lot of inertia in the market, but I suspect that Amazon is obsolete.  I give them 10-15 years unless they radically re-invent themselves.  (That may be a part of what this bit about the Kindle and monopolization of e-book sales is about.  But it could just be greed.)</p><p>P.S.:  I also think the publishers need to radically re-invent themselves.  Or perhaps the author's agents could become micro-publishers.  They don't need to handle the printing, that could be done by Lulu or some such, with a deal so that to a visitor over the web, or ordering or receiving the merchandise it looks like an old-style publisher.</p><p>N.B.:  These are wild proposals as to how things should change.  Just options of the top of my head.  But some kind of change is mandatory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we seill need publishers .
I 'm not totally clear about how publishers should change .
( Optimality from the views of the author , publisher , and reader are very different !
) I 'm much less sure we need Amazon .
Amazon is like a large department store , but if you 've been watching , that kind of store is either doing poorly or depending on what is essentially slave labor .
) They could be replaced by a combination of Google and the publishers/vendors .
Currently their existence is subsidized by the trust they people put in them to handle credit cards honestly .
( My personal perspective + projection of my views onto others .
I could easily be wrong here .
) It 's also subsidized by the credit card companies charging big companies lower rates.There 's a lot of inertia in the market , but I suspect that Amazon is obsolete .
I give them 10-15 years unless they radically re-invent themselves .
( That may be a part of what this bit about the Kindle and monopolization of e-book sales is about .
But it could just be greed. ) P.S .
: I also think the publishers need to radically re-invent themselves .
Or perhaps the author 's agents could become micro-publishers .
They do n't need to handle the printing , that could be done by Lulu or some such , with a deal so that to a visitor over the web , or ordering or receiving the merchandise it looks like an old-style publisher.N.B .
: These are wild proposals as to how things should change .
Just options of the top of my head .
But some kind of change is mandatory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we seill need publishers.
I'm not totally clear about how publishers should change.
(Optimality from the views of the author, publisher, and reader are very different!
)I'm much less sure we need Amazon.
Amazon is like a large department store, but if you've been watching, that kind of store is either doing poorly or depending on what is essentially slave labor.
)  They could be replaced by a combination of Google and the publishers/vendors.
Currently their existence is subsidized by the trust they people put in them to handle credit cards honestly.
(My personal perspective + projection of my views onto others.
I could easily be wrong here.
)  It's also subsidized by the credit card companies charging big companies lower rates.There's a lot of inertia in the market, but I suspect that Amazon is obsolete.
I give them 10-15 years unless they radically re-invent themselves.
(That may be a part of what this bit about the Kindle and monopolization of e-book sales is about.
But it could just be greed.)P.S.
:  I also think the publishers need to radically re-invent themselves.
Or perhaps the author's agents could become micro-publishers.
They don't need to handle the printing, that could be done by Lulu or some such, with a deal so that to a visitor over the web, or ordering or receiving the merchandise it looks like an old-style publisher.N.B.
:  These are wild proposals as to how things should change.
Just options of the top of my head.
But some kind of change is mandatory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995966</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Skreems</author>
	<datestamp>1265128740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're gathering dust because they're terrible, terrible books that shouldn't be read by retarded 5th graders, let alone adults. At least I hope that's why.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're gathering dust because they 're terrible , terrible books that should n't be read by retarded 5th graders , let alone adults .
At least I hope that 's why .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're gathering dust because they're terrible, terrible books that shouldn't be read by retarded 5th graders, let alone adults.
At least I hope that's why.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998546</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very interesting read, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very interesting read , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very interesting read, thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31019518</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>elizabethje</author>
	<datestamp>1264967760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I buy and read lot of books unlike most people. Hence I am very much concerned about the money I invest. I prefer to read e-books only when the paperback or hardcover is not available or is too expensive to afford.

I think the the publishing cost of e-books is much less than paperbacks and hardcovers considering the paper and printing costs.

What is the point in bringing out high priced e-books which most people in the world can't afford when they can conveniently get the same in a paperback at the same cost without buying an e-book reader?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I buy and read lot of books unlike most people .
Hence I am very much concerned about the money I invest .
I prefer to read e-books only when the paperback or hardcover is not available or is too expensive to afford .
I think the the publishing cost of e-books is much less than paperbacks and hardcovers considering the paper and printing costs .
What is the point in bringing out high priced e-books which most people in the world ca n't afford when they can conveniently get the same in a paperback at the same cost without buying an e-book reader ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I buy and read lot of books unlike most people.
Hence I am very much concerned about the money I invest.
I prefer to read e-books only when the paperback or hardcover is not available or is too expensive to afford.
I think the the publishing cost of e-books is much less than paperbacks and hardcovers considering the paper and printing costs.
What is the point in bringing out high priced e-books which most people in the world can't afford when they can conveniently get the same in a paperback at the same cost without buying an e-book reader?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001356</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1265105940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Traditional publishers don't LIKE e-books.  They wish they'd just go away.  So they aren't about to do anything to make them attractive.</p><p>N.B.:  Part of the reason that they don't like the e-book is that they don't get much money out of it.  Never think that $14.99 is what Amazon pays them.</p><p>P.S.:  This same reason is why lots of authors don't like e-books either.  They don't get very much of the publishers share, which is already pretty small.</p><p>
&nbsp; ------<br>P.P.S.:  Ever hear of the luddites?  Guess why they were anti-technology?  Right!  That technology was being used to put them out of a job and throw them out to starve in the streets.  It wasn't about technology at all.  It was about money.  But the technology story makes the guys who pay to have the histories written sound nicer.  (And it's not exactly false.  The luddites *did* smash machinery.  But it was because they didn't want to starve to death.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditional publishers do n't LIKE e-books .
They wish they 'd just go away .
So they are n't about to do anything to make them attractive.N.B .
: Part of the reason that they do n't like the e-book is that they do n't get much money out of it .
Never think that $ 14.99 is what Amazon pays them.P.S .
: This same reason is why lots of authors do n't like e-books either .
They do n't get very much of the publishers share , which is already pretty small .
  ------P.P.S .
: Ever hear of the luddites ?
Guess why they were anti-technology ?
Right ! That technology was being used to put them out of a job and throw them out to starve in the streets .
It was n't about technology at all .
It was about money .
But the technology story makes the guys who pay to have the histories written sound nicer .
( And it 's not exactly false .
The luddites * did * smash machinery .
But it was because they did n't want to starve to death .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditional publishers don't LIKE e-books.
They wish they'd just go away.
So they aren't about to do anything to make them attractive.N.B.
:  Part of the reason that they don't like the e-book is that they don't get much money out of it.
Never think that $14.99 is what Amazon pays them.P.S.
:  This same reason is why lots of authors don't like e-books either.
They don't get very much of the publishers share, which is already pretty small.
  ------P.P.S.
:  Ever hear of the luddites?
Guess why they were anti-technology?
Right!  That technology was being used to put them out of a job and throw them out to starve in the streets.
It wasn't about technology at all.
It was about money.
But the technology story makes the guys who pay to have the histories written sound nicer.
(And it's not exactly false.
The luddites *did* smash machinery.
But it was because they didn't want to starve to death.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996350</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265130000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh that's right, zero.</p></div><p>The marginal cost of producing an ebook isn't zero.</p><p>You're going to have licensing costs on whatever DRM you use...  Server storage...  Bandwidth...  Maybe it's less than the marginal costs of producing a paper book, but it isn't going to be zero.</p><p>But, marginal costs aren't what drives the price of a book to start with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh that 's right , zero.The marginal cost of producing an ebook is n't zero.You 're going to have licensing costs on whatever DRM you use... Server storage... Bandwidth... Maybe it 's less than the marginal costs of producing a paper book , but it is n't going to be zero.But , marginal costs are n't what drives the price of a book to start with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh that's right, zero.The marginal cost of producing an ebook isn't zero.You're going to have licensing costs on whatever DRM you use...  Server storage...  Bandwidth...  Maybe it's less than the marginal costs of producing a paper book, but it isn't going to be zero.But, marginal costs aren't what drives the price of a book to start with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997208</id>
	<title>Re:It's a little more complicated</title>
	<author>rochrist</author>
	<datestamp>1265132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly why will the book market be better off if publishers lose their grip? Sounds to me as though you're replacing the publisher with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....a publisher.

I suspect that there aren't that many people working in the publishing industry because they're greedy bastards trying to get rich.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly why will the book market be better off if publishers lose their grip ?
Sounds to me as though you 're replacing the publisher with ....a publisher .
I suspect that there are n't that many people working in the publishing industry because they 're greedy bastards trying to get rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly why will the book market be better off if publishers lose their grip?
Sounds to me as though you're replacing the publisher with ....a publisher.
I suspect that there aren't that many people working in the publishing industry because they're greedy bastards trying to get rich.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995554</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>maeka</author>
	<datestamp>1265127420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an important word missing in your post, and therefore likely missing in your thoughts.<br>"If the free <i>and competitive</i> market works, though,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br>Publishing is not a fully competitive market because of imperfect substitution.<br>Macro 101 axioms are too simplistic to describe such a market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an important word missing in your post , and therefore likely missing in your thoughts .
" If the free and competitive market works , though , ... " Publishing is not a fully competitive market because of imperfect substitution.Macro 101 axioms are too simplistic to describe such a market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an important word missing in your post, and therefore likely missing in your thoughts.
"If the free and competitive market works, though, ..."Publishing is not a fully competitive market because of imperfect substitution.Macro 101 axioms are too simplistic to describe such a market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995668</id>
	<title>Users surrender to Pirate Bay for ebooks</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1265127900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Story at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Story at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Story at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31051104</id>
	<title>Amazon vs. Macmillan</title>
	<author>ramosraymond54</author>
	<datestamp>1265535900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This on-going e-book 'price' war between Amazon and Macmillan is really a case of one monopoly trying to out-muscle another monopoly. The result is a cartel which can dictate prices at will. This is very bad for us consumers, and the only way we can fight this is to buy our books elsewhere. Amazon and Macmillan should know that their total e-book market share is only at a paltry 2.6\% of the total book sales worldwide (as stated at another post here). And that both Amazon and Macmillan should both learn that they might be pricing their e-books out of the market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This on-going e-book 'price ' war between Amazon and Macmillan is really a case of one monopoly trying to out-muscle another monopoly .
The result is a cartel which can dictate prices at will .
This is very bad for us consumers , and the only way we can fight this is to buy our books elsewhere .
Amazon and Macmillan should know that their total e-book market share is only at a paltry 2.6 \ % of the total book sales worldwide ( as stated at another post here ) .
And that both Amazon and Macmillan should both learn that they might be pricing their e-books out of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This on-going e-book 'price' war between Amazon and Macmillan is really a case of one monopoly trying to out-muscle another monopoly.
The result is a cartel which can dictate prices at will.
This is very bad for us consumers, and the only way we can fight this is to buy our books elsewhere.
Amazon and Macmillan should know that their total e-book market share is only at a paltry 2.6\% of the total book sales worldwide (as stated at another post here).
And that both Amazon and Macmillan should both learn that they might be pricing their e-books out of the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068</id>
	<title>Amazon bows, I won't. Boycott greedy publishers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265125560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The solution is easy: don't buy ebooks from extremely greedy publisher like this one. Even if you can afford it. Just say no. I don't.</p><p>--<br>El Guerrero del Interfaz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is easy : do n't buy ebooks from extremely greedy publisher like this one .
Even if you can afford it .
Just say no .
I do n't.--El Guerrero del Interfaz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is easy: don't buy ebooks from extremely greedy publisher like this one.
Even if you can afford it.
Just say no.
I don't.--El Guerrero del Interfaz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995456</id>
	<title>They are cheaper and DRM free ....</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1265127000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On BitTorrent. So, who cares about Amazon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On BitTorrent .
So , who cares about Amazon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On BitTorrent.
So, who cares about Amazon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1265125860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll:<br> <br>
They want the option for the new $36 hardcover big author titles to at least make half the money on an eBook format.<br> <br>
If they want to control their pricing then they should be able to...  If that prices them out of the market then that is their business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>riiiight , because they are going to charge $ 14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out.. : eyeroll : They want the option for the new $ 36 hardcover big author titles to at least make half the money on an eBook format .
If they want to control their pricing then they should be able to... If that prices them out of the market then that is their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>riiiight, because they are going to charge $14.99 for an eBook that has a 4 year old discount paperback out..:eyeroll: 
They want the option for the new $36 hardcover big author titles to at least make half the money on an eBook format.
If they want to control their pricing then they should be able to...  If that prices them out of the market then that is their business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995784</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>MuChild</author>
	<datestamp>1265128200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. I don't see how publishers are the bad guy here. Everyone seems to think that every form of intellectual property should be free or what they perceive as low-cost regardless of the costs to produce it. That's why the music industry shrank by 2/3 in the wake of the MP3 "revolution." What people don't see is all the amazing music that they could be enjoying but there's no one to sign the band, record and promote them so they languish in their hometown and you never know they exist.<br> <br>
If it's too expensive, don't buy it. Just like any other product. I <em>could</em> buy $150 balsamic vinegar, but I don't think it's worth it even though it is tasty.<br> <br>
As far as the textbook industry is concerned, I know a thing or two about it's inner workings and, let me tell you, there is a big difference between a free textbook and a $80-$130. There are a lot of people working behind the scenes to make sure that it's useful to you, well written, up-to-date and error-free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I do n't see how publishers are the bad guy here .
Everyone seems to think that every form of intellectual property should be free or what they perceive as low-cost regardless of the costs to produce it .
That 's why the music industry shrank by 2/3 in the wake of the MP3 " revolution .
" What people do n't see is all the amazing music that they could be enjoying but there 's no one to sign the band , record and promote them so they languish in their hometown and you never know they exist .
If it 's too expensive , do n't buy it .
Just like any other product .
I could buy $ 150 balsamic vinegar , but I do n't think it 's worth it even though it is tasty .
As far as the textbook industry is concerned , I know a thing or two about it 's inner workings and , let me tell you , there is a big difference between a free textbook and a $ 80- $ 130 .
There are a lot of people working behind the scenes to make sure that it 's useful to you , well written , up-to-date and error-free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I don't see how publishers are the bad guy here.
Everyone seems to think that every form of intellectual property should be free or what they perceive as low-cost regardless of the costs to produce it.
That's why the music industry shrank by 2/3 in the wake of the MP3 "revolution.
" What people don't see is all the amazing music that they could be enjoying but there's no one to sign the band, record and promote them so they languish in their hometown and you never know they exist.
If it's too expensive, don't buy it.
Just like any other product.
I could buy $150 balsamic vinegar, but I don't think it's worth it even though it is tasty.
As far as the textbook industry is concerned, I know a thing or two about it's inner workings and, let me tell you, there is a big difference between a free textbook and a $80-$130.
There are a lot of people working behind the scenes to make sure that it's useful to you, well written, up-to-date and error-free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995176</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1265125920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's right, because nobody markets books, or pays authors, or runs press tours, or edits books...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right , because nobody markets books , or pays authors , or runs press tours , or edits books.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right, because nobody markets books, or pays authors, or runs press tours, or edits books...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996452</id>
	<title>Slashdot still fashionably late to the discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265130300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On related news, the Catholic Church has pardoned Galileo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On related news , the Catholic Church has pardoned Galileo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On related news, the Catholic Church has pardoned Galileo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995240</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>SatanicPuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265126220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not quite zero. You've still got the initial work for layout and editing, as well as the author to compensate.</p><p>Let's say 5 bucks for a "hardcover" and 2 bucks for a "paperback". Far more than they're making from Barnes and Nobel, and then Amazon could tack on a dollar to actually make a <em>profit</em> instead of a loss on selling these things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not quite zero .
You 've still got the initial work for layout and editing , as well as the author to compensate.Let 's say 5 bucks for a " hardcover " and 2 bucks for a " paperback " .
Far more than they 're making from Barnes and Nobel , and then Amazon could tack on a dollar to actually make a profit instead of a loss on selling these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not quite zero.
You've still got the initial work for layout and editing, as well as the author to compensate.Let's say 5 bucks for a "hardcover" and 2 bucks for a "paperback".
Far more than they're making from Barnes and Nobel, and then Amazon could tack on a dollar to actually make a profit instead of a loss on selling these things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31006484</id>
	<title>Re:From that bastion of Right Wing Capitalism</title>
	<author>Phyrexicaid</author>
	<datestamp>1265138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <a href="http://www.salon.com/technology/apple/index.html?story=/books/laura\_miller/2010/02/01/macmillan\_vs\_amazon" title="salon.com">Salon.com</a> [salon.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper, printing, binding and shipping/distribution. However, only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs: about $5 out of $25. Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent, and after that, the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties, editing, design, marketing, publicity, overhead and so on.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>So, the question is, does Amazon take 40 to 50 percent of the ebook price?  I would hope not, as that 40 to 50 percent would cover the costs of running a physical store (floor space rental, back office and front office staff).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Salon.com [ salon.com ] Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper , printing , binding and shipping/distribution .
However , only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs : about $ 5 out of $ 25 .
Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent , and after that , the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties , editing , design , marketing , publicity , overhead and so on.So , the question is , does Amazon take 40 to 50 percent of the ebook price ?
I would hope not , as that 40 to 50 percent would cover the costs of running a physical store ( floor space rental , back office and front office staff ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Salon.com [salon.com] Most consumers believe that e-books should be a lot cheaper than print books because the publisher has been spared the expense of paper, printing, binding and shipping/distribution.
However, only about 20 percent of the cover price of a new hardcover goes to those costs: about $5 out of $25.
Retailers take from 40 to 50 percent, and after that, the majority of the cost of a new book goes to author royalties, editing, design, marketing, publicity, overhead and so on.So, the question is, does Amazon take 40 to 50 percent of the ebook price?
I would hope not, as that 40 to 50 percent would cover the costs of running a physical store (floor space rental, back office and front office staff).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996278</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Darkstorm</author>
	<datestamp>1265129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Publishers do more than just market a book, they filter.  The cost of the book isn't the real concern for most people buying a book. (assuming there are reasonable prices for those books)  My time is worth way more than the $6 paperback, or even $15 hardcover (Yes, I get most hardcovers for $15 to $20 the day it comes out because no one is selling it at the cover price).  A book is an investment of my time to read it, and for that I want something well written and not a steamy pile of crud.  The publisher wades through the 85\% crap sent in to find the 1\% of the remaining 15\% that is worth publishing.  Do a search on slushpiles and you can see some interesting pictures of what a publisher has to wade through.  When I buy a book I'm paying the author for the story, but more the publisher for their time to filter out the crap that isn't worth reading so I don't have to.  Yes, there are some books that are great that publishers turn down, but in comparison to the tons of worthless garbage that isn't deserving of the few k of space they take up, that is a good trade off for most people.</p><p>I do think if you cut out the cost of publishing a paper book, then that cost cutting should filter down to the ebook as well.  Not many people pay full price for even a hard cover, why is the e version (bound with drm and the inability to loan or resell it) at $15 realistic?  So they pay the author a buck or two and pocket the rest?  (I am estimating high on the author payout).  I'm more inclined to feel the publisher is against ebooks and would prefer them to fail when they price them high above a non drm'd paper version...which is cheaper in most cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishers do more than just market a book , they filter .
The cost of the book is n't the real concern for most people buying a book .
( assuming there are reasonable prices for those books ) My time is worth way more than the $ 6 paperback , or even $ 15 hardcover ( Yes , I get most hardcovers for $ 15 to $ 20 the day it comes out because no one is selling it at the cover price ) .
A book is an investment of my time to read it , and for that I want something well written and not a steamy pile of crud .
The publisher wades through the 85 \ % crap sent in to find the 1 \ % of the remaining 15 \ % that is worth publishing .
Do a search on slushpiles and you can see some interesting pictures of what a publisher has to wade through .
When I buy a book I 'm paying the author for the story , but more the publisher for their time to filter out the crap that is n't worth reading so I do n't have to .
Yes , there are some books that are great that publishers turn down , but in comparison to the tons of worthless garbage that is n't deserving of the few k of space they take up , that is a good trade off for most people.I do think if you cut out the cost of publishing a paper book , then that cost cutting should filter down to the ebook as well .
Not many people pay full price for even a hard cover , why is the e version ( bound with drm and the inability to loan or resell it ) at $ 15 realistic ?
So they pay the author a buck or two and pocket the rest ?
( I am estimating high on the author payout ) .
I 'm more inclined to feel the publisher is against ebooks and would prefer them to fail when they price them high above a non drm 'd paper version...which is cheaper in most cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishers do more than just market a book, they filter.
The cost of the book isn't the real concern for most people buying a book.
(assuming there are reasonable prices for those books)  My time is worth way more than the $6 paperback, or even $15 hardcover (Yes, I get most hardcovers for $15 to $20 the day it comes out because no one is selling it at the cover price).
A book is an investment of my time to read it, and for that I want something well written and not a steamy pile of crud.
The publisher wades through the 85\% crap sent in to find the 1\% of the remaining 15\% that is worth publishing.
Do a search on slushpiles and you can see some interesting pictures of what a publisher has to wade through.
When I buy a book I'm paying the author for the story, but more the publisher for their time to filter out the crap that isn't worth reading so I don't have to.
Yes, there are some books that are great that publishers turn down, but in comparison to the tons of worthless garbage that isn't deserving of the few k of space they take up, that is a good trade off for most people.I do think if you cut out the cost of publishing a paper book, then that cost cutting should filter down to the ebook as well.
Not many people pay full price for even a hard cover, why is the e version (bound with drm and the inability to loan or resell it) at $15 realistic?
So they pay the author a buck or two and pocket the rest?
(I am estimating high on the author payout).
I'm more inclined to feel the publisher is against ebooks and would prefer them to fail when they price them high above a non drm'd paper version...which is cheaper in most cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997206</id>
	<title>OCR services? What OCR services?</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1265132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All books are edited, proofed and prepared for printing digitally.<br>Have been since the '80s - AT LEAST. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typesetting#Digital\_era" title="wikipedia.org">'70s and earlier where it was economically viable.</a> [wikipedia.org] Regardless how book is written originally - on a typewriter or using a word processor.</p><p>Only "out of print" and "ancient\_only\_copy\_in\_the\_world" editions would need to be OCRed - and most of those are public domain anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All books are edited , proofed and prepared for printing digitally.Have been since the '80s - AT LEAST .
'70s and earlier where it was economically viable .
[ wikipedia.org ] Regardless how book is written originally - on a typewriter or using a word processor.Only " out of print " and " ancient \ _only \ _copy \ _in \ _the \ _world " editions would need to be OCRed - and most of those are public domain anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All books are edited, proofed and prepared for printing digitally.Have been since the '80s - AT LEAST.
'70s and earlier where it was economically viable.
[wikipedia.org] Regardless how book is written originally - on a typewriter or using a word processor.Only "out of print" and "ancient\_only\_copy\_in\_the\_world" editions would need to be OCRed - and most of those are public domain anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996938</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>NormalVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1265132040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The whole point of copyright is to maintain profits above free market levels.</i> <br> <br>

I hadn't really thought of it in those terms, but that's a pretty profound summation, and a useful thing to keep in mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of copyright is to maintain profits above free market levels .
I had n't really thought of it in those terms , but that 's a pretty profound summation , and a useful thing to keep in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of copyright is to maintain profits above free market levels.
I hadn't really thought of it in those terms, but that's a pretty profound summation, and a useful thing to keep in mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995556</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996326</id>
	<title>Re:unfortunately, recently permitted in the U.S.</title>
	<author>CavemanKiwi</author>
	<datestamp>1265129880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow that sucks bigtime. I am not sure how this limitation of freedom benefits the majority of Americans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow that sucks bigtime .
I am not sure how this limitation of freedom benefits the majority of Americans : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow that sucks bigtime.
I am not sure how this limitation of freedom benefits the majority of Americans :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996174</id>
	<title>I hate e-books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265129400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't burn as easily as real ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't burn as easily as real ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't burn as easily as real ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996796</id>
	<title>I work at a University Press</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1265131500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and I have to say, our director would have an aneurysm at the prospect of "stealing" the copyright from our authors. The deal is we have copyright as long as the book is in print, but that's necessary to actually do business. Multiple editions are at the author's discretion, but it's generally in their best interests, and are usually the ones pushing for it so they can get more royalties.</p><p>We're not a textbook publisher, though (we've published textbooks, but it isn't our business model), so most of the charges levelled by the summary don't apply to us, and we're Canadian, so the others aren't directly analogous either.</p><p>The one thing I can speak to though, is the issue of people thinking e-books should be so much cheaper than print books. That's bullshit. The cost of physically printing books is generally about 30\% of the cover price, even less for larger print runs. The biggest chunk of the price is retailers. They buy our books at a 40\% discount, meaning they pay $6 for a $10 book. If Amazon wants to make books cheaper so desperately, they can take a fucking smaller profit margin (especially since they like to push for even *larger* discounts, so they can offer the book cheaper). The market for e-books is still quite small compared to paper books, mostly because of how much uncertainty there is in the format (it's worse than Betamax vs. VHS right now) and selling them for so cheap makes it incredibly difficult to recoup costs for small publishers like us (we put out about 15 new books a year, and have 9 permanent employees). Most of our scholarly works retail for between $30-$50. Without printing costs, we could probably move that to $25-40 (keeping in mind we get a little over half that amount, including what we need to pay to the author in royalties-generally another 10\%). How many people are going to pay that for an e-book, when there's no guarantee a new reader will actually read it 3 years from now? Maybe with the iPad we'll see some standardization in the e-book format, and then we can drop the price to something lower, and make it up in volume, because right now, it's just not feasible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and I have to say , our director would have an aneurysm at the prospect of " stealing " the copyright from our authors .
The deal is we have copyright as long as the book is in print , but that 's necessary to actually do business .
Multiple editions are at the author 's discretion , but it 's generally in their best interests , and are usually the ones pushing for it so they can get more royalties.We 're not a textbook publisher , though ( we 've published textbooks , but it is n't our business model ) , so most of the charges levelled by the summary do n't apply to us , and we 're Canadian , so the others are n't directly analogous either.The one thing I can speak to though , is the issue of people thinking e-books should be so much cheaper than print books .
That 's bullshit .
The cost of physically printing books is generally about 30 \ % of the cover price , even less for larger print runs .
The biggest chunk of the price is retailers .
They buy our books at a 40 \ % discount , meaning they pay $ 6 for a $ 10 book .
If Amazon wants to make books cheaper so desperately , they can take a fucking smaller profit margin ( especially since they like to push for even * larger * discounts , so they can offer the book cheaper ) .
The market for e-books is still quite small compared to paper books , mostly because of how much uncertainty there is in the format ( it 's worse than Betamax vs. VHS right now ) and selling them for so cheap makes it incredibly difficult to recoup costs for small publishers like us ( we put out about 15 new books a year , and have 9 permanent employees ) .
Most of our scholarly works retail for between $ 30- $ 50 .
Without printing costs , we could probably move that to $ 25-40 ( keeping in mind we get a little over half that amount , including what we need to pay to the author in royalties-generally another 10 \ % ) .
How many people are going to pay that for an e-book , when there 's no guarantee a new reader will actually read it 3 years from now ?
Maybe with the iPad we 'll see some standardization in the e-book format , and then we can drop the price to something lower , and make it up in volume , because right now , it 's just not feasible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I have to say, our director would have an aneurysm at the prospect of "stealing" the copyright from our authors.
The deal is we have copyright as long as the book is in print, but that's necessary to actually do business.
Multiple editions are at the author's discretion, but it's generally in their best interests, and are usually the ones pushing for it so they can get more royalties.We're not a textbook publisher, though (we've published textbooks, but it isn't our business model), so most of the charges levelled by the summary don't apply to us, and we're Canadian, so the others aren't directly analogous either.The one thing I can speak to though, is the issue of people thinking e-books should be so much cheaper than print books.
That's bullshit.
The cost of physically printing books is generally about 30\% of the cover price, even less for larger print runs.
The biggest chunk of the price is retailers.
They buy our books at a 40\% discount, meaning they pay $6 for a $10 book.
If Amazon wants to make books cheaper so desperately, they can take a fucking smaller profit margin (especially since they like to push for even *larger* discounts, so they can offer the book cheaper).
The market for e-books is still quite small compared to paper books, mostly because of how much uncertainty there is in the format (it's worse than Betamax vs. VHS right now) and selling them for so cheap makes it incredibly difficult to recoup costs for small publishers like us (we put out about 15 new books a year, and have 9 permanent employees).
Most of our scholarly works retail for between $30-$50.
Without printing costs, we could probably move that to $25-40 (keeping in mind we get a little over half that amount, including what we need to pay to the author in royalties-generally another 10\%).
How many people are going to pay that for an e-book, when there's no guarantee a new reader will actually read it 3 years from now?
Maybe with the iPad we'll see some standardization in the e-book format, and then we can drop the price to something lower, and make it up in volume, because right now, it's just not feasible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</id>
	<title>Ugh.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1265125320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!?  No.  No no no, and no.</p><p>Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version?  I realize there are costs associated with OCR services, but most writers use computers now anyways.  What gives with the exorbitant prices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
No. No no no , and no.Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version ?
I realize there are costs associated with OCR services , but most writers use computers now anyways .
What gives with the exorbitant prices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!?
No.  No no no, and no.Why would I pay twice the cost of a paperback version just so I could have a digital version?
I realize there are costs associated with OCR services, but most writers use computers now anyways.
What gives with the exorbitant prices?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000812</id>
	<title>Re:I work at a University Press</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265103480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats all we consumers ask.  We don't want to pay the 30\% for physically printing the books and the 40\% to the retail location.  So e-books should only cost 30\% of what a print book costs.  So if you're selling the print book for $10 the e-book should be $3.  Its just that simple.  Anything more and the consumer feels like bohica.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats all we consumers ask .
We do n't want to pay the 30 \ % for physically printing the books and the 40 \ % to the retail location .
So e-books should only cost 30 \ % of what a print book costs .
So if you 're selling the print book for $ 10 the e-book should be $ 3 .
Its just that simple .
Anything more and the consumer feels like bohica .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats all we consumers ask.
We don't want to pay the 30\% for physically printing the books and the 40\% to the retail location.
So e-books should only cost 30\% of what a print book costs.
So if you're selling the print book for $10 the e-book should be $3.
Its just that simple.
Anything more and the consumer feels like bohica.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998058</id>
	<title>Re:Why Publishers Exist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265135520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regurgitating Clay Shirky presentations...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regurgitating Clay Shirky presentations.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regurgitating Clay Shirky presentations...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995138</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>bb5ch39t</author>
	<datestamp>1265125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you read an OCR'ed e-book? I have for some very old books by a dead SciFi author that I like (H. Beam Piper). The quality absolutely SUCKED! Yes, I could read the story. But the OCR was only about 90\% accurate. And kerned letters almost guaranteed errors. Obviously nobody even bothered to proof read this thing. But, then again, it was only about $9.00 for 32 books. So it was worth it.
<p>
I like ebooks. I am hoping that they will enable authors to directly publish (self publish). That way, I know that the author is getting the majority of the money. The main problem in this case would be \_\_finding\_\_ the books on the Web. The main use of publishers today is advertising that the book exists and where it can be gotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you read an OCR'ed e-book ?
I have for some very old books by a dead SciFi author that I like ( H. Beam Piper ) .
The quality absolutely SUCKED !
Yes , I could read the story .
But the OCR was only about 90 \ % accurate .
And kerned letters almost guaranteed errors .
Obviously nobody even bothered to proof read this thing .
But , then again , it was only about $ 9.00 for 32 books .
So it was worth it .
I like ebooks .
I am hoping that they will enable authors to directly publish ( self publish ) .
That way , I know that the author is getting the majority of the money .
The main problem in this case would be \ _ \ _finding \ _ \ _ the books on the Web .
The main use of publishers today is advertising that the book exists and where it can be gotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you read an OCR'ed e-book?
I have for some very old books by a dead SciFi author that I like (H. Beam Piper).
The quality absolutely SUCKED!
Yes, I could read the story.
But the OCR was only about 90\% accurate.
And kerned letters almost guaranteed errors.
Obviously nobody even bothered to proof read this thing.
But, then again, it was only about $9.00 for 32 books.
So it was worth it.
I like ebooks.
I am hoping that they will enable authors to directly publish (self publish).
That way, I know that the author is getting the majority of the money.
The main problem in this case would be \_\_finding\_\_ the books on the Web.
The main use of publishers today is advertising that the book exists and where it can be gotten.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31023726</id>
	<title>They're competing against free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265305680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're competing against free, so the more they raise the price the more people they're pushing into downloading their book elsewhere</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're competing against free , so the more they raise the price the more people they 're pushing into downloading their book elsewhere</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're competing against free, so the more they raise the price the more people they're pushing into downloading their book elsewhere</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996884</id>
	<title>Shooting themselves in the foot</title>
	<author>TechForensics</author>
	<datestamp>1265131860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$14.99 is the way to doom for publishers.  That's annoying enough to put a ebook (.epub) reader on your smartphone and find an open-source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.txt etc. to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.epub converter (like Calibre), and then go romping amongst the seemingly millions of scanned books, including current titles, most anyplace on the web.</p><p>Greed = failure.  Think about it before you gouge us, publishers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 14.99 is the way to doom for publishers .
That 's annoying enough to put a ebook ( .epub ) reader on your smartphone and find an open-source .txt etc .
to .epub converter ( like Calibre ) , and then go romping amongst the seemingly millions of scanned books , including current titles , most anyplace on the web.Greed = failure .
Think about it before you gouge us , publishers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$14.99 is the way to doom for publishers.
That's annoying enough to put a ebook (.epub) reader on your smartphone and find an open-source .txt etc.
to .epub converter (like Calibre), and then go romping amongst the seemingly millions of scanned books, including current titles, most anyplace on the web.Greed = failure.
Think about it before you gouge us, publishers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995234</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon bows, I won't. Boycott greedy publishers</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just say no. I don't.</p></div><p>You're not female, are you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just say no .
I do n't.You 're not female , are you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just say no.
I don't.You're not female, are you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995480</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1265127060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Elizabethje: a little hint for you.</p><p>I can fully understand wanting to advertise a link to your website, but I highly suggest just putting a link in your signature.  That way, it doesn't intefere with your post, and people can ignore it if they want.  It's still KINDA frowned upon, but I get so much traffic from mine that I don't care<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Still, highly recommended you leave it out of your actual post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Elizabethje : a little hint for you.I can fully understand wanting to advertise a link to your website , but I highly suggest just putting a link in your signature .
That way , it does n't intefere with your post , and people can ignore it if they want .
It 's still KINDA frowned upon , but I get so much traffic from mine that I do n't care ; - ) Still , highly recommended you leave it out of your actual post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elizabethje: a little hint for you.I can fully understand wanting to advertise a link to your website, but I highly suggest just putting a link in your signature.
That way, it doesn't intefere with your post, and people can ignore it if they want.
It's still KINDA frowned upon, but I get so much traffic from mine that I don't care ;-)Still, highly recommended you leave it out of your actual post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996852</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265131740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Macmillan control pricing at mom and pop physical book stores? Or do they just sell them copies and have the retailers set the end prices however they see fit?<br>If its the latter, why the sudden desire to control prices?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Macmillan control pricing at mom and pop physical book stores ?
Or do they just sell them copies and have the retailers set the end prices however they see fit ? If its the latter , why the sudden desire to control prices ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Macmillan control pricing at mom and pop physical book stores?
Or do they just sell them copies and have the retailers set the end prices however they see fit?If its the latter, why the sudden desire to control prices?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996358</id>
	<title>In the end, the pricing is business minutiae</title>
	<author>prawn\_narwp</author>
	<datestamp>1265130000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the end, the pricing is business minutiae. The idealist in my says:</p><p>- prices will fall over time<br>- increased availability of content is a good thing<br>- this will increase the pool of content to bittorrent/rapidshare/hotfile/rsync<br>- if this encourages more people to read more books, this is a step in the right direction</p><p>IMHO in the end who cares how big your bookshelf is or how full your drive is of you don't read and think (critically) about what you're reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , the pricing is business minutiae .
The idealist in my says : - prices will fall over time- increased availability of content is a good thing- this will increase the pool of content to bittorrent/rapidshare/hotfile/rsync- if this encourages more people to read more books , this is a step in the right directionIMHO in the end who cares how big your bookshelf is or how full your drive is of you do n't read and think ( critically ) about what you 're reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, the pricing is business minutiae.
The idealist in my says:- prices will fall over time- increased availability of content is a good thing- this will increase the pool of content to bittorrent/rapidshare/hotfile/rsync- if this encourages more people to read more books, this is a step in the right directionIMHO in the end who cares how big your bookshelf is or how full your drive is of you don't read and think (critically) about what you're reading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996192</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Thoreauly Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1265129460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!?</p></div><p>The market decides the price, not the publishers, and if people refused to pay those prices they would drop down to affordable levels.</p><p>The fact is that people are spineless consumers who never take a stand on anything. They are happy to take it in the ass no matter how loudly they proclaim otherwise. They create all their own problems and then blame the companies whose power they've created through their own pusillanimity. They're basically slaves, but have convinced themselves otherwise.</p><p>I swear Nike could come out with manacles with their iconic swoosh on them, push it with a catchy commercial and a celebrity sponsor and people would line up to buy them and brag to their friends about how awesome their $200 Air Chains are. Isn't hyperbole fun?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK ? ! ? ! ? !
? The market decides the price , not the publishers , and if people refused to pay those prices they would drop down to affordable levels.The fact is that people are spineless consumers who never take a stand on anything .
They are happy to take it in the ass no matter how loudly they proclaim otherwise .
They create all their own problems and then blame the companies whose power they 've created through their own pusillanimity .
They 're basically slaves , but have convinced themselves otherwise.I swear Nike could come out with manacles with their iconic swoosh on them , push it with a catchy commercial and a celebrity sponsor and people would line up to buy them and brag to their friends about how awesome their $ 200 Air Chains are .
Is n't hyperbole fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$14.99 for a freaking E-BOOK?!?!?!
?The market decides the price, not the publishers, and if people refused to pay those prices they would drop down to affordable levels.The fact is that people are spineless consumers who never take a stand on anything.
They are happy to take it in the ass no matter how loudly they proclaim otherwise.
They create all their own problems and then blame the companies whose power they've created through their own pusillanimity.
They're basically slaves, but have convinced themselves otherwise.I swear Nike could come out with manacles with their iconic swoosh on them, push it with a catchy commercial and a celebrity sponsor and people would line up to buy them and brag to their friends about how awesome their $200 Air Chains are.
Isn't hyperbole fun?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996276</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1265129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole idea of buying e-books is because they are easy to carry and store and is <b>less expensive</b>.</p></div><p>Says who?</p><p>Sure, it's nice to get things for less...  But I didn't pay $400 for an ebook reader because I was too cheap to buy paper books.  I bought it largely for the convenience of being able to carry my whole library around with me, and being able to purchase/download new titles without having to find a bookstore.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So an increase in price is not going to help the publishing industry in the right way.</p></div><p>First of all, what is the <i>right way</i>?  Perhaps the publishing industry thinks the right way is to kill off ebooks so they can keep using paper?</p><p>Further, I don't think we've been told precisely how this price increase is going to work out...  I somehow doubt that they're going to charge $15 for an ebook that's available as a $5 paperback.  I assume we're talking about the larger volumes...  Things that would normally cost $15+ in stores.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Expensive books are also encouraging people to acquire books by piracy as common man is unable to pay the high cost of getting books.</p></div><p>I don't know about this <i>common man</i>...  But the average US citizen doesn't really buy books.  Most folks don't read any more than they have to.</p><p>And $15 certainly isn't a lot for a book...  Maybe it's a bit high for a trade paperback...  But $15 is nothing compared to a lot of the books out there.</p><p>And keep in mind we're talking about ebooks, which require a certain amount of infrastructure.  You really aren't going to see somebody with a computer, iPad, or Kindle absolutely unable to purchase an ebook because it costs $15 instead of $10.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole idea of buying e-books is because they are easy to carry and store and is less expensive.Says who ? Sure , it 's nice to get things for less... But I did n't pay $ 400 for an ebook reader because I was too cheap to buy paper books .
I bought it largely for the convenience of being able to carry my whole library around with me , and being able to purchase/download new titles without having to find a bookstore.So an increase in price is not going to help the publishing industry in the right way.First of all , what is the right way ?
Perhaps the publishing industry thinks the right way is to kill off ebooks so they can keep using paper ? Further , I do n't think we 've been told precisely how this price increase is going to work out... I somehow doubt that they 're going to charge $ 15 for an ebook that 's available as a $ 5 paperback .
I assume we 're talking about the larger volumes... Things that would normally cost $ 15 + in stores.Expensive books are also encouraging people to acquire books by piracy as common man is unable to pay the high cost of getting books.I do n't know about this common man... But the average US citizen does n't really buy books .
Most folks do n't read any more than they have to.And $ 15 certainly is n't a lot for a book... Maybe it 's a bit high for a trade paperback... But $ 15 is nothing compared to a lot of the books out there.And keep in mind we 're talking about ebooks , which require a certain amount of infrastructure .
You really are n't going to see somebody with a computer , iPad , or Kindle absolutely unable to purchase an ebook because it costs $ 15 instead of $ 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole idea of buying e-books is because they are easy to carry and store and is less expensive.Says who?Sure, it's nice to get things for less...  But I didn't pay $400 for an ebook reader because I was too cheap to buy paper books.
I bought it largely for the convenience of being able to carry my whole library around with me, and being able to purchase/download new titles without having to find a bookstore.So an increase in price is not going to help the publishing industry in the right way.First of all, what is the right way?
Perhaps the publishing industry thinks the right way is to kill off ebooks so they can keep using paper?Further, I don't think we've been told precisely how this price increase is going to work out...  I somehow doubt that they're going to charge $15 for an ebook that's available as a $5 paperback.
I assume we're talking about the larger volumes...  Things that would normally cost $15+ in stores.Expensive books are also encouraging people to acquire books by piracy as common man is unable to pay the high cost of getting books.I don't know about this common man...  But the average US citizen doesn't really buy books.
Most folks don't read any more than they have to.And $15 certainly isn't a lot for a book...  Maybe it's a bit high for a trade paperback...  But $15 is nothing compared to a lot of the books out there.And keep in mind we're talking about ebooks, which require a certain amount of infrastructure.
You really aren't going to see somebody with a computer, iPad, or Kindle absolutely unable to purchase an ebook because it costs $15 instead of $10.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001376</id>
	<title>Re:Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265106060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously. It's their product.  Waah, Coke won't let me make Coca Cola.</p></div><p>You picked a bad example.  Pepsi makes coca cola, they just call it pepsi cola.  You can get grocery-store branded blah-cola.  The equivalent there would be if other publishers were allowed to print DaVinci code by changing the name of the book and the names of the character (to allow for the fact that pepsi tastes slightly different than coke, we can make the text of the book slightly different by changing the character names as well).  Obviously, nobody is allowed to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
It 's their product .
Waah , Coke wo n't let me make Coca Cola.You picked a bad example .
Pepsi makes coca cola , they just call it pepsi cola .
You can get grocery-store branded blah-cola .
The equivalent there would be if other publishers were allowed to print DaVinci code by changing the name of the book and the names of the character ( to allow for the fact that pepsi tastes slightly different than coke , we can make the text of the book slightly different by changing the character names as well ) .
Obviously , nobody is allowed to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
It's their product.
Waah, Coke won't let me make Coca Cola.You picked a bad example.
Pepsi makes coca cola, they just call it pepsi cola.
You can get grocery-store branded blah-cola.
The equivalent there would be if other publishers were allowed to print DaVinci code by changing the name of the book and the names of the character (to allow for the fact that pepsi tastes slightly different than coke, we can make the text of the book slightly different by changing the character names as well).
Obviously, nobody is allowed to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995224</id>
	<title>Surrenders?</title>
	<author>proxima</author>
	<datestamp>1265126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I certainly think that $15 is overpriced for an ebook, I say let Macmillan potentially shoot themselves in the foot with their pricing.  Amazon should be focused on making everything possible available in ebook form and letting the consumer decide what's a good deal.  Amazon can always go back to Macmillan with sales stats to show them what they're losing (or not...perhaps $15 really does maximize profit for them).  With sample chapters and the possibility of very low prices from smaller publishers, ebooks provide a great way for lesser-known stuff to be widely available.  The same thing happened in music; it's far easier to get fairly obscure stuff via the internet than in CD form at a store.</p><p>What's a little strange about the ebook market is the fixed breakdown for the retailer (seems to be moving to 70 publisher 30 retailer), while in the hardcover world Walmart, Target, and Amazon are falling over each other to bring you the books with little or no markup over wholesale.  Still, Amazon is offering the 70-30 split only if you priced your book under $10 (otherwise it seems to be 65-35).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I certainly think that $ 15 is overpriced for an ebook , I say let Macmillan potentially shoot themselves in the foot with their pricing .
Amazon should be focused on making everything possible available in ebook form and letting the consumer decide what 's a good deal .
Amazon can always go back to Macmillan with sales stats to show them what they 're losing ( or not...perhaps $ 15 really does maximize profit for them ) .
With sample chapters and the possibility of very low prices from smaller publishers , ebooks provide a great way for lesser-known stuff to be widely available .
The same thing happened in music ; it 's far easier to get fairly obscure stuff via the internet than in CD form at a store.What 's a little strange about the ebook market is the fixed breakdown for the retailer ( seems to be moving to 70 publisher 30 retailer ) , while in the hardcover world Walmart , Target , and Amazon are falling over each other to bring you the books with little or no markup over wholesale .
Still , Amazon is offering the 70-30 split only if you priced your book under $ 10 ( otherwise it seems to be 65-35 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I certainly think that $15 is overpriced for an ebook, I say let Macmillan potentially shoot themselves in the foot with their pricing.
Amazon should be focused on making everything possible available in ebook form and letting the consumer decide what's a good deal.
Amazon can always go back to Macmillan with sales stats to show them what they're losing (or not...perhaps $15 really does maximize profit for them).
With sample chapters and the possibility of very low prices from smaller publishers, ebooks provide a great way for lesser-known stuff to be widely available.
The same thing happened in music; it's far easier to get fairly obscure stuff via the internet than in CD form at a store.What's a little strange about the ebook market is the fixed breakdown for the retailer (seems to be moving to 70 publisher 30 retailer), while in the hardcover world Walmart, Target, and Amazon are falling over each other to bring you the books with little or no markup over wholesale.
Still, Amazon is offering the 70-30 split only if you priced your book under $10 (otherwise it seems to be 65-35).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998654</id>
	<title>"Dinosaur," my ass...</title>
	<author>Garwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1265137740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I own and run a small publishing company.  And one of the things that I always find very amusing is when people call the print book outdated, and those of us who focus on them "dinosaurs."  It's not, and we're not.</p><p>What I am, however, is connected to reality.</p><p>There is a basic business truth: your customer base dictates to you - not the other way around.  If your customer base demands e-books, you give them e-books.  If they demand printed books, you give them printed books.</p><p>So, what does the customer base demand here?  Well, the Association of American Publishers tracks the book market based on net sales, and on a month-to-month basis, we can thus tell just what formats the market is demanding.  The most recent month's figures available is November 2009.</p><p>In November 2009, the total net book market was $808.5 million.  Of that, the e-book occupied $18.3 million ($.1 million below the audiobook).  This makes the e-book a grand total of 2.26\% of the entire book market.</p><p>That's right - 2.26\%.  Any general publisher who abandoned the printed book in favour of the e-book at this time would be endangering their business' survival.  Should the e-book one day represent 65\% of the market, then anybody not supporting it would indeed be a dinosaur.  But, right now, putting the printed book ahead of the e-book simply means that one has a realistic view of the market.</p><p>Source: <a href="http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010\_January/November10StatsRelease.htm" title="publishers.org">http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010\_January/November10StatsRelease.htm</a> [publishers.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I own and run a small publishing company .
And one of the things that I always find very amusing is when people call the print book outdated , and those of us who focus on them " dinosaurs .
" It 's not , and we 're not.What I am , however , is connected to reality.There is a basic business truth : your customer base dictates to you - not the other way around .
If your customer base demands e-books , you give them e-books .
If they demand printed books , you give them printed books.So , what does the customer base demand here ?
Well , the Association of American Publishers tracks the book market based on net sales , and on a month-to-month basis , we can thus tell just what formats the market is demanding .
The most recent month 's figures available is November 2009.In November 2009 , the total net book market was $ 808.5 million .
Of that , the e-book occupied $ 18.3 million ( $ .1 million below the audiobook ) .
This makes the e-book a grand total of 2.26 \ % of the entire book market.That 's right - 2.26 \ % .
Any general publisher who abandoned the printed book in favour of the e-book at this time would be endangering their business ' survival .
Should the e-book one day represent 65 \ % of the market , then anybody not supporting it would indeed be a dinosaur .
But , right now , putting the printed book ahead of the e-book simply means that one has a realistic view of the market.Source : http : //www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010 \ _January/November10StatsRelease.htm [ publishers.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I own and run a small publishing company.
And one of the things that I always find very amusing is when people call the print book outdated, and those of us who focus on them "dinosaurs.
"  It's not, and we're not.What I am, however, is connected to reality.There is a basic business truth: your customer base dictates to you - not the other way around.
If your customer base demands e-books, you give them e-books.
If they demand printed books, you give them printed books.So, what does the customer base demand here?
Well, the Association of American Publishers tracks the book market based on net sales, and on a month-to-month basis, we can thus tell just what formats the market is demanding.
The most recent month's figures available is November 2009.In November 2009, the total net book market was $808.5 million.
Of that, the e-book occupied $18.3 million ($.1 million below the audiobook).
This makes the e-book a grand total of 2.26\% of the entire book market.That's right - 2.26\%.
Any general publisher who abandoned the printed book in favour of the e-book at this time would be endangering their business' survival.
Should the e-book one day represent 65\% of the market, then anybody not supporting it would indeed be a dinosaur.
But, right now, putting the printed book ahead of the e-book simply means that one has a realistic view of the market.Source: http://www.publishers.org/main/PressCenter/Archicves/2010\_January/November10StatsRelease.htm [publishers.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996310</id>
	<title>Read Tobias Buckell's post on the matter</title>
	<author>Walker</author>
	<datestamp>1265129880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I notice that most of Slashdot appears to be anti-McMillan, and not anti-Amazon (surprise).  For a different perspective on the issue, everyone should read the <a href="http://www.tobiasbuckell.com/2010/01/31/why-my-books-are-no-longer-for-sale-via-amazon/" title="tobiasbuckell.com">post by Tobias Buckell</a> [tobiasbuckell.com] on the matter.  In short, he is a midlist author, and he talks about his experience with the eBook market.  He has seen negligible differences when his books are given away from free versus when they are charged for, and the lower price points are not enough to cover the costs (which he outlines) to go to market.</p><p>Agree, disagree, it is helpful to read a perspective from the other side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice that most of Slashdot appears to be anti-McMillan , and not anti-Amazon ( surprise ) .
For a different perspective on the issue , everyone should read the post by Tobias Buckell [ tobiasbuckell.com ] on the matter .
In short , he is a midlist author , and he talks about his experience with the eBook market .
He has seen negligible differences when his books are given away from free versus when they are charged for , and the lower price points are not enough to cover the costs ( which he outlines ) to go to market.Agree , disagree , it is helpful to read a perspective from the other side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice that most of Slashdot appears to be anti-McMillan, and not anti-Amazon (surprise).
For a different perspective on the issue, everyone should read the post by Tobias Buckell [tobiasbuckell.com] on the matter.
In short, he is a midlist author, and he talks about his experience with the eBook market.
He has seen negligible differences when his books are given away from free versus when they are charged for, and the lower price points are not enough to cover the costs (which he outlines) to go to market.Agree, disagree, it is helpful to read a perspective from the other side.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995916</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh.</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1265128560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah I've read OCRd books.  Sometimes its like reading 1337.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I 've read OCRd books .
Sometimes its like reading 1337 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I've read OCRd books.
Sometimes its like reading 1337.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995392</id>
	<title>Re:What's the marginal cost of production on an eb</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1265126820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that your definition of "<b>marginal</b> cost of <b>production</b>"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that your definition of " marginal cost of production " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that your definition of "marginal cost of production"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995176</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31002622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31005154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30999354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31006484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31002044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31019518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31020132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1351229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31019518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31020132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996278
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996988
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31006484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31005154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31001376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996588
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31002044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995330
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995554
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30999354
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995556
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31002622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30998058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30997046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31003876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30996562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.31000292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1351229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1351229.30995096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
