<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_12_1323248</id>
	<title>Warner To End Free Streaming of Its Content</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265982720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"If you have a license to stream content for free from Warner, be aware: Warner has <a href="http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/02/warner-bros-to-axe-licenses-for-free-streaming-services.ars">announced plans to cancel streaming licenses</a>. Major sites such as Last.fm, Spotify, and Pandora may be affected &mdash; Warner has not yet spelled out whether streaming restrictions will apply to existing licenses, or only to future ones. Warner's CEO Edgar Bronfman said, 'Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.' You might contend that Warner gets a cut of the ad-based revenue these free streaming sites take in. While true, Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work. The article quotes spokesmen for other labels who disagree with Warner's stance, however. Music's digital birthing pains continue."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " If you have a license to stream content for free from Warner , be aware : Warner has announced plans to cancel streaming licenses .
Major sites such as Last.fm , Spotify , and Pandora may be affected    Warner has not yet spelled out whether streaming restrictions will apply to existing licenses , or only to future ones .
Warner 's CEO Edgar Bronfman said , 'Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed .
' You might contend that Warner gets a cut of the ad-based revenue these free streaming sites take in .
While true , Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work .
The article quotes spokesmen for other labels who disagree with Warner 's stance , however .
Music 's digital birthing pains continue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "If you have a license to stream content for free from Warner, be aware: Warner has announced plans to cancel streaming licenses.
Major sites such as Last.fm, Spotify, and Pandora may be affected — Warner has not yet spelled out whether streaming restrictions will apply to existing licenses, or only to future ones.
Warner's CEO Edgar Bronfman said, 'Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.
' You might contend that Warner gets a cut of the ad-based revenue these free streaming sites take in.
While true, Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work.
The article quotes spokesmen for other labels who disagree with Warner's stance, however.
Music's digital birthing pains continue.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113564</id>
	<title>Your joy == Our pay</title>
	<author>oDDmON oUT</author>
	<datestamp>1265992800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work"</i></p><p>What if I stream something to see if I like it, only to decide it sucks more massively than Jar-Jar Binks?  Will Warner pay me?<br>This is one inherent fallacy of attempting to monetize intangibles.</p><p>Another is that someone in the equation will likely overvalue their piece / portion / place, and thereby decrease the enjoyment of all.</p><p>It's obvious the suits running media companies are not paying attention to what <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20100210/0021598104.shtml" title="techdirt.com">works,</a> [techdirt.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work " What if I stream something to see if I like it , only to decide it sucks more massively than Jar-Jar Binks ?
Will Warner pay me ? This is one inherent fallacy of attempting to monetize intangibles.Another is that someone in the equation will likely overvalue their piece / portion / place , and thereby decrease the enjoyment of all.It 's obvious the suits running media companies are not paying attention to what works , [ techdirt.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work"What if I stream something to see if I like it, only to decide it sucks more massively than Jar-Jar Binks?
Will Warner pay me?This is one inherent fallacy of attempting to monetize intangibles.Another is that someone in the equation will likely overvalue their piece / portion / place, and thereby decrease the enjoyment of all.It's obvious the suits running media companies are not paying attention to what works, [techdirt.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114458</id>
	<title>Don't think this applies in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265996160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no idea what this article is talking about.  The source is apparently an interview with BBC news, so I'm wondering if this is something that only applies to Britain or maybe Europe in general.<br> <br>

In the US we have a fantastic little organization called SoundExchange.  You may remember them from previous stories on slashdot about how they were trying to destroy internet radio by charging massively inflated prices.  Part of the reason it was big news is because in the US internet radio broadcasts fall under a compulsory license.  Even if you're an independent artist who is not represented by any of the labels that SoundExchange represents, broadcasters must pay SoundExchange to play your recordings.  <br> <br>Warner is in the same situation, and cannot opt out of this no matter how much they want to.  They could make specific agreements with each and every internet radio station, but all the stations would have to do is say no.  If no agreement could be reached it goes right back to the standard terms of SoundExchange.  <br> <br>

I'm not an expert in licensing, but I do work for a radio network that also broadcasts on the internet.  During the big SoundExchange debacle last year this is how everything was explained to me.  I highly doubt any internet radio service in the US will be in trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea what this article is talking about .
The source is apparently an interview with BBC news , so I 'm wondering if this is something that only applies to Britain or maybe Europe in general .
In the US we have a fantastic little organization called SoundExchange .
You may remember them from previous stories on slashdot about how they were trying to destroy internet radio by charging massively inflated prices .
Part of the reason it was big news is because in the US internet radio broadcasts fall under a compulsory license .
Even if you 're an independent artist who is not represented by any of the labels that SoundExchange represents , broadcasters must pay SoundExchange to play your recordings .
Warner is in the same situation , and can not opt out of this no matter how much they want to .
They could make specific agreements with each and every internet radio station , but all the stations would have to do is say no .
If no agreement could be reached it goes right back to the standard terms of SoundExchange .
I 'm not an expert in licensing , but I do work for a radio network that also broadcasts on the internet .
During the big SoundExchange debacle last year this is how everything was explained to me .
I highly doubt any internet radio service in the US will be in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea what this article is talking about.
The source is apparently an interview with BBC news, so I'm wondering if this is something that only applies to Britain or maybe Europe in general.
In the US we have a fantastic little organization called SoundExchange.
You may remember them from previous stories on slashdot about how they were trying to destroy internet radio by charging massively inflated prices.
Part of the reason it was big news is because in the US internet radio broadcasts fall under a compulsory license.
Even if you're an independent artist who is not represented by any of the labels that SoundExchange represents, broadcasters must pay SoundExchange to play your recordings.
Warner is in the same situation, and cannot opt out of this no matter how much they want to.
They could make specific agreements with each and every internet radio station, but all the stations would have to do is say no.
If no agreement could be reached it goes right back to the standard terms of SoundExchange.
I'm not an expert in licensing, but I do work for a radio network that also broadcasts on the internet.
During the big SoundExchange debacle last year this is how everything was explained to me.
I highly doubt any internet radio service in the US will be in trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not true.<br> <br>When I listen to FM radio, I have no control over what gets played -- except by changing stations.  On Pandora (not sure about last.fm, I don't use it) I have input into the song selection.  I've fine-tuned my favorite stations so that I can enjoy the music I like without ever needing to buy it.  I don't have to worry about songs I like dropping off the playlists of my favorite stations (so I don't need to buy the songs if I still want to listen to them).<br> <br>This is markedly different from FM radio, where the marketing arms of the labels, along with Clearchannel, decide what gets exposure.<br> <br>Because the labels have less input into what I listen to on Pandora (than on FM radio), their marketing efforts are less effective.  Aggregated across millions of users, what streaming services represent is a loss of control of the industry (and the marketplace!) by the labels.  They want to avoid this at all costs, since technology is making their role almost exclusively marketing.<br> <br>Long story short, streaming services where the listener has control over what content gets played spell the end of the big label era.  The big labels fighting tooth and claw for their survival.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.That 's not true .
When I listen to FM radio , I have no control over what gets played -- except by changing stations .
On Pandora ( not sure about last.fm , I do n't use it ) I have input into the song selection .
I 've fine-tuned my favorite stations so that I can enjoy the music I like without ever needing to buy it .
I do n't have to worry about songs I like dropping off the playlists of my favorite stations ( so I do n't need to buy the songs if I still want to listen to them ) .
This is markedly different from FM radio , where the marketing arms of the labels , along with Clearchannel , decide what gets exposure .
Because the labels have less input into what I listen to on Pandora ( than on FM radio ) , their marketing efforts are less effective .
Aggregated across millions of users , what streaming services represent is a loss of control of the industry ( and the marketplace !
) by the labels .
They want to avoid this at all costs , since technology is making their role almost exclusively marketing .
Long story short , streaming services where the listener has control over what content gets played spell the end of the big label era .
The big labels fighting tooth and claw for their survival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.That's not true.
When I listen to FM radio, I have no control over what gets played -- except by changing stations.
On Pandora (not sure about last.fm, I don't use it) I have input into the song selection.
I've fine-tuned my favorite stations so that I can enjoy the music I like without ever needing to buy it.
I don't have to worry about songs I like dropping off the playlists of my favorite stations (so I don't need to buy the songs if I still want to listen to them).
This is markedly different from FM radio, where the marketing arms of the labels, along with Clearchannel, decide what gets exposure.
Because the labels have less input into what I listen to on Pandora (than on FM radio), their marketing efforts are less effective.
Aggregated across millions of users, what streaming services represent is a loss of control of the industry (and the marketplace!
) by the labels.
They want to avoid this at all costs, since technology is making their role almost exclusively marketing.
Long story short, streaming services where the listener has control over what content gets played spell the end of the big label era.
The big labels fighting tooth and claw for their survival.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114434</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Internal Modem</author>
	<datestamp>1265995980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pandora introduces me to new artists I like, whose music I do purchase. Pandora has directly resulted in increased spending on my part due to this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pandora introduces me to new artists I like , whose music I do purchase .
Pandora has directly resulted in increased spending on my part due to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pandora introduces me to new artists I like, whose music I do purchase.
Pandora has directly resulted in increased spending on my part due to this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112558</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spotify denies that they're losing Warner.

</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To be clear WMG is not pulling out of Spotify. Media is taking things out of context. So don't worry-be happy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p></div><p> <a href="http://twitter.com/spotify" title="twitter.com">http://twitter.com/spotify</a> [twitter.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spotify denies that they 're losing Warner .
To be clear WMG is not pulling out of Spotify .
Media is taking things out of context .
So do n't worry-be happy : http : //twitter.com/spotify [ twitter.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spotify denies that they're losing Warner.
To be clear WMG is not pulling out of Spotify.
Media is taking things out of context.
So don't worry-be happy : http://twitter.com/spotify [twitter.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114138</id>
	<title>sooooo.....</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1265994900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I downloaded the 52nd annual grammy awards show from usenet last week.</p><p>I was watching it last night and something ocurred to me that should have cut like a knife to those in attendance.  Stephen Colbert was the introductory emcee for the show and during his monologue, he said something so poingant and pertinent that it bears repeating.  He said, "... This year your industry was saved by a forty eight year old Scottish cat lady in sensible shoes... Congratulations to her!"  This rang so true that it made me think about the industry itself.  They are giving out the major category grammy awards based upon what pre-teens spend their money on.  I guess this is why the album of the year went to a teenager who can't sing on key without IEMs.</p><p>The industry executives are still out of touch with reality.  You don't get a grammy for selling your own music via itunes or magnatune or something else.  You also don't get a grammy for being a musical genius.  The industry perpetuates their own woes.  They wonder why they're not flourishing in new media.</p><p>The executives aren't harnessing new media properly.  They're not selling a product people want to buy.  You can't cram your product down people's throat and expect happy customers.  The music industry has become so complacent that they are treating their product like a commodity.  It's not.  It's highly subject to market forces and cultural preferences.</p><p>Until they learn to adapt to new markets and sell a product which people like, I won't be spending a single dollar on music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded the 52nd annual grammy awards show from usenet last week.I was watching it last night and something ocurred to me that should have cut like a knife to those in attendance .
Stephen Colbert was the introductory emcee for the show and during his monologue , he said something so poingant and pertinent that it bears repeating .
He said , " ... This year your industry was saved by a forty eight year old Scottish cat lady in sensible shoes... Congratulations to her !
" This rang so true that it made me think about the industry itself .
They are giving out the major category grammy awards based upon what pre-teens spend their money on .
I guess this is why the album of the year went to a teenager who ca n't sing on key without IEMs.The industry executives are still out of touch with reality .
You do n't get a grammy for selling your own music via itunes or magnatune or something else .
You also do n't get a grammy for being a musical genius .
The industry perpetuates their own woes .
They wonder why they 're not flourishing in new media.The executives are n't harnessing new media properly .
They 're not selling a product people want to buy .
You ca n't cram your product down people 's throat and expect happy customers .
The music industry has become so complacent that they are treating their product like a commodity .
It 's not .
It 's highly subject to market forces and cultural preferences.Until they learn to adapt to new markets and sell a product which people like , I wo n't be spending a single dollar on music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded the 52nd annual grammy awards show from usenet last week.I was watching it last night and something ocurred to me that should have cut like a knife to those in attendance.
Stephen Colbert was the introductory emcee for the show and during his monologue, he said something so poingant and pertinent that it bears repeating.
He said, "... This year your industry was saved by a forty eight year old Scottish cat lady in sensible shoes... Congratulations to her!
"  This rang so true that it made me think about the industry itself.
They are giving out the major category grammy awards based upon what pre-teens spend their money on.
I guess this is why the album of the year went to a teenager who can't sing on key without IEMs.The industry executives are still out of touch with reality.
You don't get a grammy for selling your own music via itunes or magnatune or something else.
You also don't get a grammy for being a musical genius.
The industry perpetuates their own woes.
They wonder why they're not flourishing in new media.The executives aren't harnessing new media properly.
They're not selling a product people want to buy.
You can't cram your product down people's throat and expect happy customers.
The music industry has become so complacent that they are treating their product like a commodity.
It's not.
It's highly subject to market forces and cultural preferences.Until they learn to adapt to new markets and sell a product which people like, I won't be spending a single dollar on music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112476</id>
	<title>Smart move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just don't get it ey? People recognize music for what it is. Waves in the air. It has no value as such. Now they finally had a way to combat what is in some countries illegal downloading in a positive manner for both them and consumer and now they pull the plug. It aren't the downloaders who are killing the business, it's the business that is going for full suicide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just do n't get it ey ?
People recognize music for what it is .
Waves in the air .
It has no value as such .
Now they finally had a way to combat what is in some countries illegal downloading in a positive manner for both them and consumer and now they pull the plug .
It are n't the downloaders who are killing the business , it 's the business that is going for full suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just don't get it ey?
People recognize music for what it is.
Waves in the air.
It has no value as such.
Now they finally had a way to combat what is in some countries illegal downloading in a positive manner for both them and consumer and now they pull the plug.
It aren't the downloaders who are killing the business, it's the business that is going for full suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113078</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the reality is, most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they've created and enjoy.</p></div><p>This seems like it should be of at least *some* concern to record labels.  People use sites like Pandora to discover new music that they might like.  Pull your music from it, and people won't discover your music.  They'll discover other labels' music.
</p><p>They may as well be telling radio stations to stop playing their music, telling MTV to stop showing their videos.  Does MTV show videos ever anymore?  Is there a channel that does?  I don't know.  I don't listen to the radio either.  If I find new music that I like, I do it over the Internet.
</p><p>In fact, I think people get too much enjoyment from the cover art of CDs.  Labels should insist that record stores not shelve CDs, but require customers to buy them before they can be taken out of the back room.  Oh, wait, that doesn't matter because most of us don't buy CDs anymore.  But they should definitely pull the 30 second previews from online stores; I sometimes have some enjoyment when I listen to those, and those are FREE!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the reality is , most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they 'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they 've created and enjoy.This seems like it should be of at least * some * concern to record labels .
People use sites like Pandora to discover new music that they might like .
Pull your music from it , and people wo n't discover your music .
They 'll discover other labels ' music .
They may as well be telling radio stations to stop playing their music , telling MTV to stop showing their videos .
Does MTV show videos ever anymore ?
Is there a channel that does ?
I do n't know .
I do n't listen to the radio either .
If I find new music that I like , I do it over the Internet .
In fact , I think people get too much enjoyment from the cover art of CDs .
Labels should insist that record stores not shelve CDs , but require customers to buy them before they can be taken out of the back room .
Oh , wait , that does n't matter because most of us do n't buy CDs anymore .
But they should definitely pull the 30 second previews from online stores ; I sometimes have some enjoyment when I listen to those , and those are FREE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the reality is, most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they've created and enjoy.This seems like it should be of at least *some* concern to record labels.
People use sites like Pandora to discover new music that they might like.
Pull your music from it, and people won't discover your music.
They'll discover other labels' music.
They may as well be telling radio stations to stop playing their music, telling MTV to stop showing their videos.
Does MTV show videos ever anymore?
Is there a channel that does?
I don't know.
I don't listen to the radio either.
If I find new music that I like, I do it over the Internet.
In fact, I think people get too much enjoyment from the cover art of CDs.
Labels should insist that record stores not shelve CDs, but require customers to buy them before they can be taken out of the back room.
Oh, wait, that doesn't matter because most of us don't buy CDs anymore.
But they should definitely pull the 30 second previews from online stores; I sometimes have some enjoyment when I listen to those, and those are FREE!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113358</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265991900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking. Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you. (...) I know executives in his industry have the feeling of "If we cut off access, people will pay us 100x more to listen to it! They'll be dying to listen to our music!"</p></div><p>Flip that statement around, and you're only willing to pay for something when you enjoy it. The more you enjoy it, the more you're willing but not inclined to pay for it. So if you offer it real cheap, many people will listen but because the ad revenue is so little you make less in total and you could make more by charging more. 10,000 fans willing to pay 0.65$ (+ 0.34 to Apple) at iTunes = 6500$ is still more than 10,000,000 times played at Spotify at 0.0002$/play = 2000$. Yes, the payouts have really been on that order. Now I don't actually keep count of the songs played but there's very, very few songs I've played over 1000 times. Spotify claims to make the pirates pay a little and a little is more than nothing, but if it eats even a fraction into their CD/online sales they're losing money on it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this line... " Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work " - it 's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking .
Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment , their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you .
( ... ) I know executives in his industry have the feeling of " If we cut off access , people will pay us 100x more to listen to it !
They 'll be dying to listen to our music !
" Flip that statement around , and you 're only willing to pay for something when you enjoy it .
The more you enjoy it , the more you 're willing but not inclined to pay for it .
So if you offer it real cheap , many people will listen but because the ad revenue is so little you make less in total and you could make more by charging more .
10,000 fans willing to pay 0.65 $ ( + 0.34 to Apple ) at iTunes = 6500 $ is still more than 10,000,000 times played at Spotify at 0.0002 $ /play = 2000 $ .
Yes , the payouts have really been on that order .
Now I do n't actually keep count of the songs played but there 's very , very few songs I 've played over 1000 times .
Spotify claims to make the pirates pay a little and a little is more than nothing , but if it eats even a fraction into their CD/online sales they 're losing money on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.
Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.
(...) I know executives in his industry have the feeling of "If we cut off access, people will pay us 100x more to listen to it!
They'll be dying to listen to our music!
"Flip that statement around, and you're only willing to pay for something when you enjoy it.
The more you enjoy it, the more you're willing but not inclined to pay for it.
So if you offer it real cheap, many people will listen but because the ad revenue is so little you make less in total and you could make more by charging more.
10,000 fans willing to pay 0.65$ (+ 0.34 to Apple) at iTunes = 6500$ is still more than 10,000,000 times played at Spotify at 0.0002$/play = 2000$.
Yes, the payouts have really been on that order.
Now I don't actually keep count of the songs played but there's very, very few songs I've played over 1000 times.
Spotify claims to make the pirates pay a little and a little is more than nothing, but if it eats even a fraction into their CD/online sales they're losing money on it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31117000</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1266006660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format (just the metadata, not the songs themselves), I'd get totally pissed if I can't access them any more.</p></div><p>"Low Barrier to Exit" - a great phrase I read in Scott McNealy's recent farewell.  Its a concept that Google seems to get with all their efforts to make sure  you can get your data out of their various services and apparently Spotify doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format ( just the metadata , not the songs themselves ) , I 'd get totally pissed if I ca n't access them any more .
" Low Barrier to Exit " - a great phrase I read in Scott McNealy 's recent farewell .
Its a concept that Google seems to get with all their efforts to make sure you can get your data out of their various services and apparently Spotify does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format (just the metadata, not the songs themselves), I'd get totally pissed if I can't access them any more.
"Low Barrier to Exit" - a great phrase I read in Scott McNealy's recent farewell.
Its a concept that Google seems to get with all their efforts to make sure  you can get your data out of their various services and apparently Spotify doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116016</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266001920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly don't buy every song / album that I listen to on Pandora, but I don't buy every song that I hear on the radio either.  The fact remains that both air and internet radio provide a form of advertising for which the label is compensated.  What a great business to be in!</p><p>I don't know if there have been any recent studies, but adding myself to a virtual list of anecdotal evidence:<br>* 8 of the last 10 albums I've purchased was music I discovered or previewed with Pandora<br>* Yes, I still usually buy full albums</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly do n't buy every song / album that I listen to on Pandora , but I do n't buy every song that I hear on the radio either .
The fact remains that both air and internet radio provide a form of advertising for which the label is compensated .
What a great business to be in ! I do n't know if there have been any recent studies , but adding myself to a virtual list of anecdotal evidence : * 8 of the last 10 albums I 've purchased was music I discovered or previewed with Pandora * Yes , I still usually buy full albums</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly don't buy every song / album that I listen to on Pandora, but I don't buy every song that I hear on the radio either.
The fact remains that both air and internet radio provide a form of advertising for which the label is compensated.
What a great business to be in!I don't know if there have been any recent studies, but adding myself to a virtual list of anecdotal evidence:* 8 of the last 10 albums I've purchased was music I discovered or previewed with Pandora* Yes, I still usually buy full albums</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113090</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1265990760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does". don't forget this is the same company that thought it was a good idea a decade ago to shell out insane money for AOHell. They just don't seem to get there are millions of folks out there that simply won't pay<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99c a track, period. Of course if these PHBs had their way tracks would be starting at $1.49 and go up to $3, making sure nobody ever bought tracks online. With streaming services they can run commercials and folks have gotten so used to radio that as long as they have less commercials than radio folks will tune in.</p><p>To me this is NO different than the game DRM fiasco. Look at Spore, many legit customers ran like hell away from it because the DRM was too nasty, and how many times was it pirated again? I'm pretty sure it was like the MOST pirated game that year. No matter how badly they want to go back to the 1970s, where the only mediums you had wore down every time you played them insuring a constant revenue stream it just ain't coming back. With the Internet we have just so many choices for entertainment even if you never pirate that getting someone to even listen to your product is valuable. Hell with Windows 7 HP and Internet TV I don't even have enough hours in the day to watch all the programming I would like to see, much less listen to new music. While I would listen to Internet radio or streaming services just to hear something new, I'm not shelling out cash to hear some bands I may/may not like. I just have too many choices now.</p><p>

 If groups like Warner pull all streaming services that will be just one more group of artists I will never hear, will never go see in concert, will never buy their merchandise. Smart move Warner, I can see now that the same great business sense that thought AOL was a good idea is still alive in you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote Forrest Gump " Stupid is as stupid does " .
do n't forget this is the same company that thought it was a good idea a decade ago to shell out insane money for AOHell .
They just do n't seem to get there are millions of folks out there that simply wo n't pay .99c a track , period .
Of course if these PHBs had their way tracks would be starting at $ 1.49 and go up to $ 3 , making sure nobody ever bought tracks online .
With streaming services they can run commercials and folks have gotten so used to radio that as long as they have less commercials than radio folks will tune in.To me this is NO different than the game DRM fiasco .
Look at Spore , many legit customers ran like hell away from it because the DRM was too nasty , and how many times was it pirated again ?
I 'm pretty sure it was like the MOST pirated game that year .
No matter how badly they want to go back to the 1970s , where the only mediums you had wore down every time you played them insuring a constant revenue stream it just ai n't coming back .
With the Internet we have just so many choices for entertainment even if you never pirate that getting someone to even listen to your product is valuable .
Hell with Windows 7 HP and Internet TV I do n't even have enough hours in the day to watch all the programming I would like to see , much less listen to new music .
While I would listen to Internet radio or streaming services just to hear something new , I 'm not shelling out cash to hear some bands I may/may not like .
I just have too many choices now .
If groups like Warner pull all streaming services that will be just one more group of artists I will never hear , will never go see in concert , will never buy their merchandise .
Smart move Warner , I can see now that the same great business sense that thought AOL was a good idea is still alive in you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does".
don't forget this is the same company that thought it was a good idea a decade ago to shell out insane money for AOHell.
They just don't seem to get there are millions of folks out there that simply won't pay .99c a track, period.
Of course if these PHBs had their way tracks would be starting at $1.49 and go up to $3, making sure nobody ever bought tracks online.
With streaming services they can run commercials and folks have gotten so used to radio that as long as they have less commercials than radio folks will tune in.To me this is NO different than the game DRM fiasco.
Look at Spore, many legit customers ran like hell away from it because the DRM was too nasty, and how many times was it pirated again?
I'm pretty sure it was like the MOST pirated game that year.
No matter how badly they want to go back to the 1970s, where the only mediums you had wore down every time you played them insuring a constant revenue stream it just ain't coming back.
With the Internet we have just so many choices for entertainment even if you never pirate that getting someone to even listen to your product is valuable.
Hell with Windows 7 HP and Internet TV I don't even have enough hours in the day to watch all the programming I would like to see, much less listen to new music.
While I would listen to Internet radio or streaming services just to hear something new, I'm not shelling out cash to hear some bands I may/may not like.
I just have too many choices now.
If groups like Warner pull all streaming services that will be just one more group of artists I will never hear, will never go see in concert, will never buy their merchandise.
Smart move Warner, I can see now that the same great business sense that thought AOL was a good idea is still alive in you!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</id>
	<title>This is what's keeping me from paying for Spotify</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1265987280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Spotify a lot. But there's one huge problem: If Big Content pulls out then Spotify will wither and die. And if they do then my playlists, which contain the most valuable information for me, are also doomed. This is huge problem.</p><p>If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format (just the metadata, not the songs themselves), I'd get totally pissed if I can't access them any more. So as long as Big Content is threatening to pull out of these services (which apparently still pay more than radio from what I've heard) I'm not inclined to pay. I can always get the tracks themselves through some other service, but only if I know which they are.</p><p>I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot, and stop treating customers like the enemy. But I'm too idealistic, I guess...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Spotify a lot .
But there 's one huge problem : If Big Content pulls out then Spotify will wither and die .
And if they do then my playlists , which contain the most valuable information for me , are also doomed .
This is huge problem.If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format ( just the metadata , not the songs themselves ) , I 'd get totally pissed if I ca n't access them any more .
So as long as Big Content is threatening to pull out of these services ( which apparently still pay more than radio from what I 've heard ) I 'm not inclined to pay .
I can always get the tracks themselves through some other service , but only if I know which they are.I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot , and stop treating customers like the enemy .
But I 'm too idealistic , I guess.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Spotify a lot.
But there's one huge problem: If Big Content pulls out then Spotify will wither and die.
And if they do then my playlists, which contain the most valuable information for me, are also doomed.
This is huge problem.If I spend countless hours listening to music and discovering new artists without the ability to export my playlists in some open format (just the metadata, not the songs themselves), I'd get totally pissed if I can't access them any more.
So as long as Big Content is threatening to pull out of these services (which apparently still pay more than radio from what I've heard) I'm not inclined to pay.
I can always get the tracks themselves through some other service, but only if I know which they are.I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot, and stop treating customers like the enemy.
But I'm too idealistic, I guess...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113518</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1265992620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry I can't find the link (I have a cold which throws my Google Fu totally off) but I remember one of the label heads talking after the whole "copying from your CD to your iPod is not fair use!" bullshit that he thought the customers should have to go to a <em>pay per use model</em> and IIRC he was quoted as a nickel to 25 cents a song.</p><p>The problem is these butt monkeys have gotten spoiled from the 1970s, where all you head was mediums where every play would wear on the music, making sure the customers would have to buy over and over and over again. Of course they aren't bothering to pay the...oh what are they called? Oh yeah artists for those back catalogs (last I heard Cheap trick is still suing over Live at Budokan and Meatloaf IIRC is still having to sue for profits over Bat Out of Hell 1) thanks to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood\_accounting" title="wikipedia.org">Hollywood Accounting</a> [wikipedia.org] but even that isn't enough for these jokers. Instead they will just keep raising prices, running off customers, and then when profits go down they'll trot a little PPT over to congress to get the next Sonny Bono copyright ass rape passed.</p><p>

Meanwhile the artists and the customers get screwed, because thanks to Clear channel and payola you will find it is damned near impossible to get a non major label act on the radio, and if we customers buy we get screwed, if we don't they scream "Piracy!" and pay our politicians to screw us. For a good example of badly the artists get fucked just read <a href="http://www.peternoone.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1690&amp;page=1" title="peternoone.com">this</a> [peternoone.com]. Notice how the record label gets 3 million, and the artist gets $4k? Sadly talking to friends in Nashville this is pretty typical across the industry. As you can see their greed knows no bounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry I ca n't find the link ( I have a cold which throws my Google Fu totally off ) but I remember one of the label heads talking after the whole " copying from your CD to your iPod is not fair use !
" bullshit that he thought the customers should have to go to a pay per use model and IIRC he was quoted as a nickel to 25 cents a song.The problem is these butt monkeys have gotten spoiled from the 1970s , where all you head was mediums where every play would wear on the music , making sure the customers would have to buy over and over and over again .
Of course they are n't bothering to pay the...oh what are they called ?
Oh yeah artists for those back catalogs ( last I heard Cheap trick is still suing over Live at Budokan and Meatloaf IIRC is still having to sue for profits over Bat Out of Hell 1 ) thanks to Hollywood Accounting [ wikipedia.org ] but even that is n't enough for these jokers .
Instead they will just keep raising prices , running off customers , and then when profits go down they 'll trot a little PPT over to congress to get the next Sonny Bono copyright ass rape passed .
Meanwhile the artists and the customers get screwed , because thanks to Clear channel and payola you will find it is damned near impossible to get a non major label act on the radio , and if we customers buy we get screwed , if we do n't they scream " Piracy !
" and pay our politicians to screw us .
For a good example of badly the artists get fucked just read this [ peternoone.com ] .
Notice how the record label gets 3 million , and the artist gets $ 4k ?
Sadly talking to friends in Nashville this is pretty typical across the industry .
As you can see their greed knows no bounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry I can't find the link (I have a cold which throws my Google Fu totally off) but I remember one of the label heads talking after the whole "copying from your CD to your iPod is not fair use!
" bullshit that he thought the customers should have to go to a pay per use model and IIRC he was quoted as a nickel to 25 cents a song.The problem is these butt monkeys have gotten spoiled from the 1970s, where all you head was mediums where every play would wear on the music, making sure the customers would have to buy over and over and over again.
Of course they aren't bothering to pay the...oh what are they called?
Oh yeah artists for those back catalogs (last I heard Cheap trick is still suing over Live at Budokan and Meatloaf IIRC is still having to sue for profits over Bat Out of Hell 1) thanks to Hollywood Accounting [wikipedia.org] but even that isn't enough for these jokers.
Instead they will just keep raising prices, running off customers, and then when profits go down they'll trot a little PPT over to congress to get the next Sonny Bono copyright ass rape passed.
Meanwhile the artists and the customers get screwed, because thanks to Clear channel and payola you will find it is damned near impossible to get a non major label act on the radio, and if we customers buy we get screwed, if we don't they scream "Piracy!
" and pay our politicians to screw us.
For a good example of badly the artists get fucked just read this [peternoone.com].
Notice how the record label gets 3 million, and the artist gets $4k?
Sadly talking to friends in Nashville this is pretty typical across the industry.
As you can see their greed knows no bounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112788</id>
	<title>Re:Just a question, and thought..</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1265989260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>duplicating the bits might not cost very much, but creating them does. studio time, producer fees, etc aren't cheap. i work near a music studio and pass it by on the way home. once in a while i see musicians hanging out. one time I think i saw the Foo Fighters going in and out, but i wasn't a big fan back then and didn't recognize them. another time a few session guitarists walked out and headed toward the subway walking in front of me. and they talked about how some guy they know tried out for The Smashing Pumpkins. i imagine they got paid for whatever work they did that day to make the bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>duplicating the bits might not cost very much , but creating them does .
studio time , producer fees , etc are n't cheap .
i work near a music studio and pass it by on the way home .
once in a while i see musicians hanging out .
one time I think i saw the Foo Fighters going in and out , but i was n't a big fan back then and did n't recognize them .
another time a few session guitarists walked out and headed toward the subway walking in front of me .
and they talked about how some guy they know tried out for The Smashing Pumpkins .
i imagine they got paid for whatever work they did that day to make the bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>duplicating the bits might not cost very much, but creating them does.
studio time, producer fees, etc aren't cheap.
i work near a music studio and pass it by on the way home.
once in a while i see musicians hanging out.
one time I think i saw the Foo Fighters going in and out, but i wasn't a big fan back then and didn't recognize them.
another time a few session guitarists walked out and headed toward the subway walking in front of me.
and they talked about how some guy they know tried out for The Smashing Pumpkins.
i imagine they got paid for whatever work they did that day to make the bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114812</id>
	<title>List of their artists</title>
	<author>chrisl456</author>
	<datestamp>1265997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Warner\_Music\_Group\_artists" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Here's a list of their artists</a> [wikipedia.org], since I'm sure not many people know (or care) what label has which artist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a list of their artists [ wikipedia.org ] , since I 'm sure not many people know ( or care ) what label has which artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a list of their artists [wikipedia.org], since I'm sure not many people know (or care) what label has which artist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113698</id>
	<title>Burn them at the stakes</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1265993340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love streaming radio, in fact, the only radio i still listen to is last.fm and i'm actually a paying customer (European here), there is a huge market out there for streaming radio, the reason why i use last.fm is twofold: it plays the music genre's i like and  i can listen to my radiostation for any internet connection that's fast enough, and i absolutely love it!<br>
<br>
If however, if the costs of using last.fm rise due to these arses, i might stop using a <b>paid for</b> service and go back to carrying a hard drive filled with ripped cd's, that'll probably be <i>net positive</i> for Warner...<br>
<br>
Incidently, i wonder if any of my favourite bands are actually signed up with them or not...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love streaming radio , in fact , the only radio i still listen to is last.fm and i 'm actually a paying customer ( European here ) , there is a huge market out there for streaming radio , the reason why i use last.fm is twofold : it plays the music genre 's i like and i can listen to my radiostation for any internet connection that 's fast enough , and i absolutely love it !
If however , if the costs of using last.fm rise due to these arses , i might stop using a paid for service and go back to carrying a hard drive filled with ripped cd 's , that 'll probably be net positive for Warner.. . Incidently , i wonder if any of my favourite bands are actually signed up with them or not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love streaming radio, in fact, the only radio i still listen to is last.fm and i'm actually a paying customer (European here), there is a huge market out there for streaming radio, the reason why i use last.fm is twofold: it plays the music genre's i like and  i can listen to my radiostation for any internet connection that's fast enough, and i absolutely love it!
If however, if the costs of using last.fm rise due to these arses, i might stop using a paid for service and go back to carrying a hard drive filled with ripped cd's, that'll probably be net positive for Warner...

Incidently, i wonder if any of my favourite bands are actually signed up with them or not...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</id>
	<title>Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1265987940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm gonna vent here because this just happened and is directly to do with digital media.  A certain store that deals in tunes I emailed last week.  My niece had spent over $150 on those 99 cent or so tracks there, at my encouragement.  I really do want to see her at least start out on a path of compensating the artists (even though the labels can suck it).  So, anyway, she had a catastrophic hard drive crash - everything gone.  Reinstalled Windows no problem, go back to this tunes program, no option to re-download legally purchased music.  A bit of Internet searching led to people referencing a mythical "form" which when filled out would get the Internet gods to flip a switch and give you a magical one-time additional download.  Bandwidth doesn't really cost that much, this is a customer service issue here: it's <i>different</i> from physical cd's.  So filled out the form and the days go by and no response.  I'm disheartened.  What did we do last night?  I installed Limewire on her machine and I'll be damned if she's going to throw her money away again.  $150 may not be a drop to them but to my thirteen year old niece it was a fortune I talked her into spending when she could have chosen to get her music the way everyone else does from the beginning.  We'll try again in a few more years and see if the industry has smartened up by then.  I don't have the heart to talk her into potentially throwing her money away again before then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm gon na vent here because this just happened and is directly to do with digital media .
A certain store that deals in tunes I emailed last week .
My niece had spent over $ 150 on those 99 cent or so tracks there , at my encouragement .
I really do want to see her at least start out on a path of compensating the artists ( even though the labels can suck it ) .
So , anyway , she had a catastrophic hard drive crash - everything gone .
Reinstalled Windows no problem , go back to this tunes program , no option to re-download legally purchased music .
A bit of Internet searching led to people referencing a mythical " form " which when filled out would get the Internet gods to flip a switch and give you a magical one-time additional download .
Bandwidth does n't really cost that much , this is a customer service issue here : it 's different from physical cd 's .
So filled out the form and the days go by and no response .
I 'm disheartened .
What did we do last night ?
I installed Limewire on her machine and I 'll be damned if she 's going to throw her money away again .
$ 150 may not be a drop to them but to my thirteen year old niece it was a fortune I talked her into spending when she could have chosen to get her music the way everyone else does from the beginning .
We 'll try again in a few more years and see if the industry has smartened up by then .
I do n't have the heart to talk her into potentially throwing her money away again before then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm gonna vent here because this just happened and is directly to do with digital media.
A certain store that deals in tunes I emailed last week.
My niece had spent over $150 on those 99 cent or so tracks there, at my encouragement.
I really do want to see her at least start out on a path of compensating the artists (even though the labels can suck it).
So, anyway, she had a catastrophic hard drive crash - everything gone.
Reinstalled Windows no problem, go back to this tunes program, no option to re-download legally purchased music.
A bit of Internet searching led to people referencing a mythical "form" which when filled out would get the Internet gods to flip a switch and give you a magical one-time additional download.
Bandwidth doesn't really cost that much, this is a customer service issue here: it's different from physical cd's.
So filled out the form and the days go by and no response.
I'm disheartened.
What did we do last night?
I installed Limewire on her machine and I'll be damned if she's going to throw her money away again.
$150 may not be a drop to them but to my thirteen year old niece it was a fortune I talked her into spending when she could have chosen to get her music the way everyone else does from the beginning.
We'll try again in a few more years and see if the industry has smartened up by then.
I don't have the heart to talk her into potentially throwing her money away again before then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112284</id>
	<title>Loss of customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be that the only reason I listen to Warner music is because it is streamed to me. I know if they no longer stream their music I will no longer listen to their music.</p><p>Hopefully that means Warner music will go the way of the dodo bird and we will not have to hear about such blind and bad business judgments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be that the only reason I listen to Warner music is because it is streamed to me .
I know if they no longer stream their music I will no longer listen to their music.Hopefully that means Warner music will go the way of the dodo bird and we will not have to hear about such blind and bad business judgments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be that the only reason I listen to Warner music is because it is streamed to me.
I know if they no longer stream their music I will no longer listen to their music.Hopefully that means Warner music will go the way of the dodo bird and we will not have to hear about such blind and bad business judgments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114806</id>
	<title>Buh bye, Warner artists...</title>
	<author>AmazingRuss</author>
	<datestamp>1265997300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I listen to Pandora, the more cool indie artists I discover.  I won't miss the Warner catalog at all.</p><p>The more they tighten their grasp, the more of us listeners slip through their fingers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I listen to Pandora , the more cool indie artists I discover .
I wo n't miss the Warner catalog at all.The more they tighten their grasp , the more of us listeners slip through their fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I listen to Pandora, the more cool indie artists I discover.
I won't miss the Warner catalog at all.The more they tighten their grasp, the more of us listeners slip through their fingers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114106</id>
	<title>Re:Good news really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1 Troll... Really? Mods?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 Troll... Really ? Mods ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 Troll... Really? Mods?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112634</id>
	<title>Re:Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void</title>
	<author>flitty</author>
	<datestamp>1265988660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I think is probably going to happen is every Warner label artist, other than "Major" established bands (and possibly cultural phenomenons/one hit wonders) will never get off the ground.<br> <br>
I'm not a big torrent guy, and my wife only watches what is either on Hulu or gets caught by our DVR.  Unless there are rave reviews for some show on cable, we don't see it, and don't care to take the time to find it.  Music has become very similiar in its form of transmission.  If I hear about a band directly from a friend that turns out to be a band I like, i'll go out of my way to find the band, but I would say 90\% of the bands I find is through Last.fm and similar streaming venues.  Warner now will not have access to the 90\% zone of new music for me, which is about the dumbest move I could see a music label make at this juncture in the music industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think is probably going to happen is every Warner label artist , other than " Major " established bands ( and possibly cultural phenomenons/one hit wonders ) will never get off the ground .
I 'm not a big torrent guy , and my wife only watches what is either on Hulu or gets caught by our DVR .
Unless there are rave reviews for some show on cable , we do n't see it , and do n't care to take the time to find it .
Music has become very similiar in its form of transmission .
If I hear about a band directly from a friend that turns out to be a band I like , i 'll go out of my way to find the band , but I would say 90 \ % of the bands I find is through Last.fm and similar streaming venues .
Warner now will not have access to the 90 \ % zone of new music for me , which is about the dumbest move I could see a music label make at this juncture in the music industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think is probably going to happen is every Warner label artist, other than "Major" established bands (and possibly cultural phenomenons/one hit wonders) will never get off the ground.
I'm not a big torrent guy, and my wife only watches what is either on Hulu or gets caught by our DVR.
Unless there are rave reviews for some show on cable, we don't see it, and don't care to take the time to find it.
Music has become very similiar in its form of transmission.
If I hear about a band directly from a friend that turns out to be a band I like, i'll go out of my way to find the band, but I would say 90\% of the bands I find is through Last.fm and similar streaming venues.
Warner now will not have access to the 90\% zone of new music for me, which is about the dumbest move I could see a music label make at this juncture in the music industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118140</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>3vi1</author>
	<datestamp>1265967000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; When I listen to FM radio, I have no control over what gets played</p><p>Call in and make a request.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; When I listen to FM radio , I have no control over what gets playedCall in and make a request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; When I listen to FM radio, I have no control over what gets playedCall in and make a request.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324</id>
	<title>Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because I 'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113954</id>
	<title>Two years later...</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1265994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and nothing of value was lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and nothing of value was lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and nothing of value was lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113440</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265992260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone, then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public. Stunning.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Saying it is okay.</p><p>Bribing the politicians to give them the legal right to get paid for that "public performance", or else send you an extortionate letter for $5000, or drag you to court for a $100,000 fine......... that's the real problem.</p><p>These corporations have stolen the People's Government and turned it into the Corporations' government.  They need to be shot.  Quickly, quietly, but still dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone , then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public .
Stunning. &gt; &gt; &gt; Saying it is okay.Bribing the politicians to give them the legal right to get paid for that " public performance " , or else send you an extortionate letter for $ 5000 , or drag you to court for a $ 100,000 fine......... that 's the real problem.These corporations have stolen the People 's Government and turned it into the Corporations ' government .
They need to be shot .
Quickly , quietly , but still dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone, then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public.
Stunning.&gt;&gt;&gt;Saying it is okay.Bribing the politicians to give them the legal right to get paid for that "public performance", or else send you an extortionate letter for $5000, or drag you to court for a $100,000 fine......... that's the real problem.These corporations have stolen the People's Government and turned it into the Corporations' government.
They need to be shot.
Quickly, quietly, but still dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113276</id>
	<title>Re:Unmitigated Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265991540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jesus.  Judging by your user id you must be an adult, but that is the biggest heap of teenage entitlement whinging I've read for a while.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus .
Judging by your user id you must be an adult , but that is the biggest heap of teenage entitlement whinging I 've read for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus.
Judging by your user id you must be an adult, but that is the biggest heap of teenage entitlement whinging I've read for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114998</id>
	<title>Well, think ball and going home</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1265997960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warner got their ball, so they make the rules or else they take their ball home with them.
</p><p>And for some reason, the rest of the world cares and can not simply pick up a snowball and give this Warner brat one to the back of its head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warner got their ball , so they make the rules or else they take their ball home with them .
And for some reason , the rest of the world cares and can not simply pick up a snowball and give this Warner brat one to the back of its head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warner got their ball, so they make the rules or else they take their ball home with them.
And for some reason, the rest of the world cares and can not simply pick up a snowball and give this Warner brat one to the back of its head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113742</id>
	<title>Streaming is the new radio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have a license to broadcast content for free from Warner, be aware: Warner has announced plans to cancel broadcast licenses. Warner's CEO Edgar Bronfman said, 'Free broadcasting radio services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.'</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a license to broadcast content for free from Warner , be aware : Warner has announced plans to cancel broadcast licenses .
Warner 's CEO Edgar Bronfman said , 'Free broadcasting radio services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed .
'FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a license to broadcast content for free from Warner, be aware: Warner has announced plans to cancel broadcast licenses.
Warner's CEO Edgar Bronfman said, 'Free broadcasting radio services are clearly not net positive for the industry and as far as Warner Music is concerned will not be licensed.
'FTFY
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113594</id>
	<title>20th century economics of artificial scarcity...</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1265992920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big media companies are still thinking in 20th century terms of creating scarcity and profiting from standing between people and what they think they want. The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity, as you gave an example of. The irony goes for media publishers, who want to be compensated every time someone enjoys themselves and prevent others from being happy, rather than everyone just help each other be happy through gifts. But it also goes for things like military robots, used ironically to enforce wage slavery and other related hierarchical social processes instead of building robots to do the work. Or it goes for nuclear missiles, ironically to fight over land with oil on it, instead of building habitats in space for more land, or building power systems on earth from renewables or nuclear energy.</p><p>So, this is all part of a widely unrealized irony now that we are in the 21st century of potential abundance, not the 20th of real scarcity anymore. Now that we have so much technology, so many networks, and so much knowledge about better design, we need an economics of abundance for the 21st century. An economy of abundance might involve things like a gift economy (especially for things that are easy to copy), improved local communities with local production (like 3D printing), a basic income for all (like in Alaska, from the shared bounty of collectively owned natural resources), and better accounting, planning, and regulation for resource use given externalities like pollution or social problems caused by various economic strategies.</p><p>The alternative is just more artificial scarcity and make-work, which overall seems immoral to me if we understand the alternatives. Of course, given that only some people see this, how do we survive as individuals with one foot in 20th century economics and one foot in 21st century economics (Wikipedia, Debian GNU/Linux, RepRap, etc.)? Coming up with a good transition path to a society built around the assumption of material abundance is the short-term problem we all face.</p><p>Humor on this:<br>
  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas\_World" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas\_World</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>""The Midas Plague" (originally published in Galaxy in 1954). In this new world of cheap energy, robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind. So now the "poor" are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, trying to keep up with the robots' extravagant production, so that the "rich" can live lives of simplicity. This story deals with the life of a man named Morey Fry, who marries a girl from a higher class. She is unused to a life of consumption and it wears at their marriage."</p><p>Seriousness on this, from the (sadly) late Howard Ziss:<br>
 <a href="http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html" title="historyisaweapon.com">http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html</a> [historyisaweapon.com] <br>"""<br>However, the unexpected victories - even temporary ones - of insurgents show the vulnerability of the supposedly powerful. In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen. These people - the employed, the somewhat privileged - are drawn into alliance with the elite. They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls.<br>
       That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attica -- expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us.<br>"""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big media companies are still thinking in 20th century terms of creating scarcity and profiting from standing between people and what they think they want .
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity , as you gave an example of .
The irony goes for media publishers , who want to be compensated every time someone enjoys themselves and prevent others from being happy , rather than everyone just help each other be happy through gifts .
But it also goes for things like military robots , used ironically to enforce wage slavery and other related hierarchical social processes instead of building robots to do the work .
Or it goes for nuclear missiles , ironically to fight over land with oil on it , instead of building habitats in space for more land , or building power systems on earth from renewables or nuclear energy.So , this is all part of a widely unrealized irony now that we are in the 21st century of potential abundance , not the 20th of real scarcity anymore .
Now that we have so much technology , so many networks , and so much knowledge about better design , we need an economics of abundance for the 21st century .
An economy of abundance might involve things like a gift economy ( especially for things that are easy to copy ) , improved local communities with local production ( like 3D printing ) , a basic income for all ( like in Alaska , from the shared bounty of collectively owned natural resources ) , and better accounting , planning , and regulation for resource use given externalities like pollution or social problems caused by various economic strategies.The alternative is just more artificial scarcity and make-work , which overall seems immoral to me if we understand the alternatives .
Of course , given that only some people see this , how do we survive as individuals with one foot in 20th century economics and one foot in 21st century economics ( Wikipedia , Debian GNU/Linux , RepRap , etc. ) ?
Coming up with a good transition path to a society built around the assumption of material abundance is the short-term problem we all face.Humor on this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas \ _World [ wikipedia.org ] " " The Midas Plague " ( originally published in Galaxy in 1954 ) .
In this new world of cheap energy , robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind .
So now the " poor " are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption , trying to keep up with the robots ' extravagant production , so that the " rich " can live lives of simplicity .
This story deals with the life of a man named Morey Fry , who marries a girl from a higher class .
She is unused to a life of consumption and it wears at their marriage .
" Seriousness on this , from the ( sadly ) late Howard Ziss : http : //www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html [ historyisaweapon.com ] " " " However , the unexpected victories - even temporary ones - of insurgents show the vulnerability of the supposedly powerful .
In a highly developed society , the Establishment can not survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going : the soldiers and police , teachers and ministers , administrators and social workers , technicians and production workers , doctors , lawyers , nurses , transport and communications workers , garbage men and firemen .
These people - the employed , the somewhat privileged - are drawn into alliance with the elite .
They become the guards of the system , buffers between the upper and lower classes .
If they stop obeying , the system falls .
That will happen , I think , only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attica -- expendable ; that the Establishment , whatever rewards it gives us , will also , if necessary to maintain its control , kill us .
" " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big media companies are still thinking in 20th century terms of creating scarcity and profiting from standing between people and what they think they want.
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity, as you gave an example of.
The irony goes for media publishers, who want to be compensated every time someone enjoys themselves and prevent others from being happy, rather than everyone just help each other be happy through gifts.
But it also goes for things like military robots, used ironically to enforce wage slavery and other related hierarchical social processes instead of building robots to do the work.
Or it goes for nuclear missiles, ironically to fight over land with oil on it, instead of building habitats in space for more land, or building power systems on earth from renewables or nuclear energy.So, this is all part of a widely unrealized irony now that we are in the 21st century of potential abundance, not the 20th of real scarcity anymore.
Now that we have so much technology, so many networks, and so much knowledge about better design, we need an economics of abundance for the 21st century.
An economy of abundance might involve things like a gift economy (especially for things that are easy to copy), improved local communities with local production (like 3D printing), a basic income for all (like in Alaska, from the shared bounty of collectively owned natural resources), and better accounting, planning, and regulation for resource use given externalities like pollution or social problems caused by various economic strategies.The alternative is just more artificial scarcity and make-work, which overall seems immoral to me if we understand the alternatives.
Of course, given that only some people see this, how do we survive as individuals with one foot in 20th century economics and one foot in 21st century economics (Wikipedia, Debian GNU/Linux, RepRap, etc.)?
Coming up with a good transition path to a society built around the assumption of material abundance is the short-term problem we all face.Humor on this:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas\_World [wikipedia.org] ""The Midas Plague" (originally published in Galaxy in 1954).
In this new world of cheap energy, robots are overproducing the commodities enjoyed by mankind.
So now the "poor" are forced to spend their lives in frantic consumption, trying to keep up with the robots' extravagant production, so that the "rich" can live lives of simplicity.
This story deals with the life of a man named Morey Fry, who marries a girl from a higher class.
She is unused to a life of consumption and it wears at their marriage.
"Seriousness on this, from the (sadly) late Howard Ziss:
 http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html [historyisaweapon.com] """However, the unexpected victories - even temporary ones - of insurgents show the vulnerability of the supposedly powerful.
In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers, nurses, transport and communications workers, garbage men and firemen.
These people - the employed, the somewhat privileged - are drawn into alliance with the elite.
They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes.
If they stop obeying, the system falls.
That will happen, I think, only when all of us who are slightly privileged and slightly uneasy begin to see that we are like the guards in the prison uprising at Attica -- expendable; that the Establishment, whatever rewards it gives us, will also, if necessary to maintain its control, kill us.
"""</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116242</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1266002760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I get MP3s from gomusicnow.com.  The big labels have very little influence over what I listen too.  Most of my current favorite artists I probably never would have even heard of if I stuck to radio or even streaming, like Emilie Autumn, Collide, The Birthday Massacre, Helalyn Flowers, Crisk, and Billy Talent.  It's possible some of them got some radio air time, but I've never heard it.  I started by getting the MP3s I knew I wanted.  Then I got mix albums with the artists I liked.  I found I liked some of the other artists on the mixes, so got more of them, and so on.  At nine cents a song I can afford to impulse buy like that, and get to a lot of artists I like that I wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise.  At a dollar a song I'd never do something like that and overall would not only have a lot less music, not have music I enjoy as much, and not know about a lot of artists I currently do, but I would also spend a lesser total of money on music.  I also wouldn't have dragged two other people along to the Emilie Autumn show when she was here in Minneapolis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I get MP3s from gomusicnow.com .
The big labels have very little influence over what I listen too .
Most of my current favorite artists I probably never would have even heard of if I stuck to radio or even streaming , like Emilie Autumn , Collide , The Birthday Massacre , Helalyn Flowers , Crisk , and Billy Talent .
It 's possible some of them got some radio air time , but I 've never heard it .
I started by getting the MP3s I knew I wanted .
Then I got mix albums with the artists I liked .
I found I liked some of the other artists on the mixes , so got more of them , and so on .
At nine cents a song I can afford to impulse buy like that , and get to a lot of artists I like that I would n't have been exposed to otherwise .
At a dollar a song I 'd never do something like that and overall would not only have a lot less music , not have music I enjoy as much , and not know about a lot of artists I currently do , but I would also spend a lesser total of money on music .
I also would n't have dragged two other people along to the Emilie Autumn show when she was here in Minneapolis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I get MP3s from gomusicnow.com.
The big labels have very little influence over what I listen too.
Most of my current favorite artists I probably never would have even heard of if I stuck to radio or even streaming, like Emilie Autumn, Collide, The Birthday Massacre, Helalyn Flowers, Crisk, and Billy Talent.
It's possible some of them got some radio air time, but I've never heard it.
I started by getting the MP3s I knew I wanted.
Then I got mix albums with the artists I liked.
I found I liked some of the other artists on the mixes, so got more of them, and so on.
At nine cents a song I can afford to impulse buy like that, and get to a lot of artists I like that I wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise.
At a dollar a song I'd never do something like that and overall would not only have a lot less music, not have music I enjoy as much, and not know about a lot of artists I currently do, but I would also spend a lesser total of money on music.
I also wouldn't have dragged two other people along to the Emilie Autumn show when she was here in Minneapolis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112876</id>
	<title>Watching Diplodocus Starve</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's what this whole thing reminds me of.  Music simply isn't worth what it used to be because there's now more competition, and more choice in the market place.  Warner needs to get smaller very quickly to survive.</p><p>If I ever start a band I will name it "Watching Diplodocus Starve"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's what this whole thing reminds me of .
Music simply is n't worth what it used to be because there 's now more competition , and more choice in the market place .
Warner needs to get smaller very quickly to survive.If I ever start a band I will name it " Watching Diplodocus Starve "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's what this whole thing reminds me of.
Music simply isn't worth what it used to be because there's now more competition, and more choice in the market place.
Warner needs to get smaller very quickly to survive.If I ever start a band I will name it "Watching Diplodocus Starve"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</id>
	<title>I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>GTarrant</author>
	<datestamp>1265987400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.  Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.  If you're thinking about a song but it isn't being played, in his mind, you owe for those few seconds.  Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone, then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public.  Stunning.<br><br>I guess the question is, what amount of money would he say is the right amount of "compensation" for each individual's enjoyment of each work?  Because very few of these streaming services are making much money at all, and while I know executives in his industry have the feeling of "If we cut off access, people will pay us 100x more to listen to it!  They'll be dying to listen to our music!" (how well did that work for online newspaper sites that decided to go behind a paywall?), the reality is, most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they've created and enjoy.  They certainly wouldn't start paying big bucks to a Warner Music Station.  The labels have tried that, they lose their shirt every time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this line... " Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work " - it 's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking .
Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment , their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you .
If you 're thinking about a song but it is n't being played , in his mind , you owe for those few seconds .
Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone , then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public .
Stunning.I guess the question is , what amount of money would he say is the right amount of " compensation " for each individual 's enjoyment of each work ?
Because very few of these streaming services are making much money at all , and while I know executives in his industry have the feeling of " If we cut off access , people will pay us 100x more to listen to it !
They 'll be dying to listen to our music !
" ( how well did that work for online newspaper sites that decided to go behind a paywall ?
) , the reality is , most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they 'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they 've created and enjoy .
They certainly would n't start paying big bucks to a Warner Music Station .
The labels have tried that , they lose their shirt every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.
Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.
If you're thinking about a song but it isn't being played, in his mind, you owe for those few seconds.
Consider that this is an industry that sells you a ringtone, then says you owe extra money when your phone rings because you just broadcast music in public.
Stunning.I guess the question is, what amount of money would he say is the right amount of "compensation" for each individual's enjoyment of each work?
Because very few of these streaming services are making much money at all, and while I know executives in his industry have the feeling of "If we cut off access, people will pay us 100x more to listen to it!
They'll be dying to listen to our music!
" (how well did that work for online newspaper sites that decided to go behind a paywall?
), the reality is, most people I know that enjoy listening to Pandora or last.fm would be perfectly fine if everything of Warner just dropped off it - they'd just continue listening to whatever it serves up on the various stations they've created and enjoy.
They certainly wouldn't start paying big bucks to a Warner Music Station.
The labels have tried that, they lose their shirt every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113672</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1265993220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More importantly, why would I pay for music I don't even know I'll like?  I don't listen to terrestrial radio anymore and have long since cancelled my XM subscription, so a large part of my exposure to new music is via free streaming like Pandora.  If I hear something I like, I'll buy the track.  If WMG really does pull out of Pandora, I'll probably never hear their stuff and have no reason to actually buy anything from them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More importantly , why would I pay for music I do n't even know I 'll like ?
I do n't listen to terrestrial radio anymore and have long since cancelled my XM subscription , so a large part of my exposure to new music is via free streaming like Pandora .
If I hear something I like , I 'll buy the track .
If WMG really does pull out of Pandora , I 'll probably never hear their stuff and have no reason to actually buy anything from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More importantly, why would I pay for music I don't even know I'll like?
I don't listen to terrestrial radio anymore and have long since cancelled my XM subscription, so a large part of my exposure to new music is via free streaming like Pandora.
If I hear something I like, I'll buy the track.
If WMG really does pull out of Pandora, I'll probably never hear their stuff and have no reason to actually buy anything from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115060</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1265998200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Close, but not exactly.  The real problem is that when a song plays on a streaming system it plays to a very limited audience.  Usually just one person.  Bottom line is, it pays a heck of a lot less.</p><p>The simple fact is, record labels are just businesses exactly like any other.  They market a product and make enough money off the sale of it to pay their bills.  If they were making money off streaming you can be damn sure they would continue with it regardless of who has control.</p><p>They're leaving because they aren't making a profit.  Simple as that.</p><p>Seriously guys, I know you like to think everything in the world is a big horrible conspiracy against you personally but they're just trying to keep their doors open and make sure their employees pay checks don't bounce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Close , but not exactly .
The real problem is that when a song plays on a streaming system it plays to a very limited audience .
Usually just one person .
Bottom line is , it pays a heck of a lot less.The simple fact is , record labels are just businesses exactly like any other .
They market a product and make enough money off the sale of it to pay their bills .
If they were making money off streaming you can be damn sure they would continue with it regardless of who has control.They 're leaving because they are n't making a profit .
Simple as that.Seriously guys , I know you like to think everything in the world is a big horrible conspiracy against you personally but they 're just trying to keep their doors open and make sure their employees pay checks do n't bounce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Close, but not exactly.
The real problem is that when a song plays on a streaming system it plays to a very limited audience.
Usually just one person.
Bottom line is, it pays a heck of a lot less.The simple fact is, record labels are just businesses exactly like any other.
They market a product and make enough money off the sale of it to pay their bills.
If they were making money off streaming you can be damn sure they would continue with it regardless of who has control.They're leaving because they aren't making a profit.
Simple as that.Seriously guys, I know you like to think everything in the world is a big horrible conspiracy against you personally but they're just trying to keep their doors open and make sure their employees pay checks don't bounce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112642</id>
	<title>Re:Arguing with the Internet</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1265988660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. The value of your product is whatever the market decides it is worth. Turns out that for streams of bits this value is "not much".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The value of your product is whatever the market decides it is worth .
Turns out that for streams of bits this value is " not much " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The value of your product is whatever the market decides it is worth.
Turns out that for streams of bits this value is "not much".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112706</id>
	<title>Artists who just lost album sales:</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Warner\_Music\_Group\_artists" title="wikipedia.org">List of Warner Music Group Artists</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>I bought Octavarium based on hearing Dream Theater on Spotify. I won't bother with the rest of their albums.<br> <br>I'll also post on their Facebook / fansites telling them so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>List of Warner Music Group Artists [ wikipedia.org ] I bought Octavarium based on hearing Dream Theater on Spotify .
I wo n't bother with the rest of their albums .
I 'll also post on their Facebook / fansites telling them so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>List of Warner Music Group Artists [wikipedia.org]  I bought Octavarium based on hearing Dream Theater on Spotify.
I won't bother with the rest of their albums.
I'll also post on their Facebook / fansites telling them so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113686</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>LateArthurDent</author>
	<datestamp>1265993280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.</p></div><p>I'm going to enjoy some music from warner.  Damn, I owe than money.  Alright, I'll pay them.</p><p>I think many executives at warner enjoy the fact that I paid for their music.  I think they owe me some money.  And since my money made so many people happy, I think they should give me quite a bit more than I paid for the song.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment , their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.I 'm going to enjoy some music from warner .
Damn , I owe than money .
Alright , I 'll pay them.I think many executives at warner enjoy the fact that I paid for their music .
I think they owe me some money .
And since my money made so many people happy , I think they should give me quite a bit more than I paid for the song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.I'm going to enjoy some music from warner.
Damn, I owe than money.
Alright, I'll pay them.I think many executives at warner enjoy the fact that I paid for their music.
I think they owe me some money.
And since my money made so many people happy, I think they should give me quite a bit more than I paid for the song.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115188</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>TheTyrannyOfForcedRe</author>
	<datestamp>1265998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Limewire!?!!  You are not doing anyone a favor by installing Limewire.  You might as well dump a load of viruses and trojans on their machine while you're at it.  Also, send their name and address to the RIAA along with a list of files downloaded.</p><p>Have some mercy! Set the girl up on a good private BT tracker with a decent BT-only client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Limewire ! ? ! !
You are not doing anyone a favor by installing Limewire .
You might as well dump a load of viruses and trojans on their machine while you 're at it .
Also , send their name and address to the RIAA along with a list of files downloaded.Have some mercy !
Set the girl up on a good private BT tracker with a decent BT-only client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Limewire!?!!
You are not doing anyone a favor by installing Limewire.
You might as well dump a load of viruses and trojans on their machine while you're at it.
Also, send their name and address to the RIAA along with a list of files downloaded.Have some mercy!
Set the girl up on a good private BT tracker with a decent BT-only client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118252</id>
	<title>Re:Don't think this applies in the US</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1265967240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've got the details right, but don't think it doesn't affect the US.  The legislative battle over compulsory licensing can always be reopened and I'm sure Warner is posturing themselves to be ready just in case.
<br> <br>
The thing that always gets misunderstood about compulsory licensing is it was meant to be a boon to consumers.  It's an *exception* to copyright, compulsory on the part of the rightsholder.  You can play by copyright, get permission, pay the rightsholder directly, *or* you can go through SoundExchange.  Since it's insanely burdensome to get permission for everything you want (which might not always be granted or at prohibitive prices) you have some extra flexibility.  This is EXACTLY why Warner et al want these prices higher.  They want everyone to have to go through the RIAA for their music, a process in which neither indie producers nor broadcasters get a seat at the table.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got the details right , but do n't think it does n't affect the US .
The legislative battle over compulsory licensing can always be reopened and I 'm sure Warner is posturing themselves to be ready just in case .
The thing that always gets misunderstood about compulsory licensing is it was meant to be a boon to consumers .
It 's an * exception * to copyright , compulsory on the part of the rightsholder .
You can play by copyright , get permission , pay the rightsholder directly , * or * you can go through SoundExchange .
Since it 's insanely burdensome to get permission for everything you want ( which might not always be granted or at prohibitive prices ) you have some extra flexibility .
This is EXACTLY why Warner et al want these prices higher .
They want everyone to have to go through the RIAA for their music , a process in which neither indie producers nor broadcasters get a seat at the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got the details right, but don't think it doesn't affect the US.
The legislative battle over compulsory licensing can always be reopened and I'm sure Warner is posturing themselves to be ready just in case.
The thing that always gets misunderstood about compulsory licensing is it was meant to be a boon to consumers.
It's an *exception* to copyright, compulsory on the part of the rightsholder.
You can play by copyright, get permission, pay the rightsholder directly, *or* you can go through SoundExchange.
Since it's insanely burdensome to get permission for everything you want (which might not always be granted or at prohibitive prices) you have some extra flexibility.
This is EXACTLY why Warner et al want these prices higher.
They want everyone to have to go through the RIAA for their music, a process in which neither indie producers nor broadcasters get a seat at the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114108</id>
	<title>ad's not working?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1265994780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait...TV is just a different form of TV streaming then internet streaming.  In TV the ads are fairly general (shotgun).  Online the ads can be tailored towards the viewer (it stores your watching habits, asks you questionnaires when you register an account, etc).  Basically the advertising done for internet can be targeted for YOU which makes it more valuable to ad companies...more value = more money.  Add to that fact you can keep a sidebar open with the ad so the person watching the view always has a picture of that burger king whopper.  Basically..how are they not making MORE money on internet streaming then TV streaming...oh and btw, they don't have to pay cable providers a cut of the ad dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait...TV is just a different form of TV streaming then internet streaming .
In TV the ads are fairly general ( shotgun ) .
Online the ads can be tailored towards the viewer ( it stores your watching habits , asks you questionnaires when you register an account , etc ) .
Basically the advertising done for internet can be targeted for YOU which makes it more valuable to ad companies...more value = more money .
Add to that fact you can keep a sidebar open with the ad so the person watching the view always has a picture of that burger king whopper .
Basically..how are they not making MORE money on internet streaming then TV streaming...oh and btw , they do n't have to pay cable providers a cut of the ad dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait...TV is just a different form of TV streaming then internet streaming.
In TV the ads are fairly general (shotgun).
Online the ads can be tailored towards the viewer (it stores your watching habits, asks you questionnaires when you register an account, etc).
Basically the advertising done for internet can be targeted for YOU which makes it more valuable to ad companies...more value = more money.
Add to that fact you can keep a sidebar open with the ad so the person watching the view always has a picture of that burger king whopper.
Basically..how are they not making MORE money on internet streaming then TV streaming...oh and btw, they don't have to pay cable providers a cut of the ad dollars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113074</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1265990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, Napster has been pretty good about letting me re-download tracks I lost due to an emergency reformat. Additionally, utilities exist for retrieving songs off an iPod if they were synced to one. I totally agree with the fact that the issue you're talking about is complete and utter crap - even Steam lets me re-download my games as many times as I need to; surely 14GBytes of upload for Mass Effect 2has to cost them more than the ~750 MBytes from iTunes (and yes, I'm assuming iTunes here). I gotta give props to Warner here; they've just won the current round of who-can-make-their-IP-policies-even-less-customer-friendly-than-EA. On a practical note, if you're going to give her Limewire, I'd encourage you to use a utility like SteadyState or Acronis True Image to mitigate the virus/malware issues that will inevitably arise. IME, an uninfected machine with Limewire is about as common as a leprechaun riding a unicorn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , Napster has been pretty good about letting me re-download tracks I lost due to an emergency reformat .
Additionally , utilities exist for retrieving songs off an iPod if they were synced to one .
I totally agree with the fact that the issue you 're talking about is complete and utter crap - even Steam lets me re-download my games as many times as I need to ; surely 14GBytes of upload for Mass Effect 2has to cost them more than the ~ 750 MBytes from iTunes ( and yes , I 'm assuming iTunes here ) .
I got ta give props to Warner here ; they 've just won the current round of who-can-make-their-IP-policies-even-less-customer-friendly-than-EA .
On a practical note , if you 're going to give her Limewire , I 'd encourage you to use a utility like SteadyState or Acronis True Image to mitigate the virus/malware issues that will inevitably arise .
IME , an uninfected machine with Limewire is about as common as a leprechaun riding a unicorn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, Napster has been pretty good about letting me re-download tracks I lost due to an emergency reformat.
Additionally, utilities exist for retrieving songs off an iPod if they were synced to one.
I totally agree with the fact that the issue you're talking about is complete and utter crap - even Steam lets me re-download my games as many times as I need to; surely 14GBytes of upload for Mass Effect 2has to cost them more than the ~750 MBytes from iTunes (and yes, I'm assuming iTunes here).
I gotta give props to Warner here; they've just won the current round of who-can-make-their-IP-policies-even-less-customer-friendly-than-EA.
On a practical note, if you're going to give her Limewire, I'd encourage you to use a utility like SteadyState or Acronis True Image to mitigate the virus/malware issues that will inevitably arise.
IME, an uninfected machine with Limewire is about as common as a leprechaun riding a unicorn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112420</id>
	<title>Mandatory downtime for criticism</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265987520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's bad news for people who post <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6758oOuYs" title="youtube.com">criticism of the music of an artist on a Warner label</a> [youtube.com]. Even though the fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism of that work or its author is permitted under United States law (17 USC 107), several venues for this criticism have a "remove first, ask questions later" policy that enforces a mandatory two-week downtime for any work that is the subject of a third-party copyright claim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's bad news for people who post criticism of the music of an artist on a Warner label [ youtube.com ] .
Even though the fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism of that work or its author is permitted under United States law ( 17 USC 107 ) , several venues for this criticism have a " remove first , ask questions later " policy that enforces a mandatory two-week downtime for any work that is the subject of a third-party copyright claim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's bad news for people who post criticism of the music of an artist on a Warner label [youtube.com].
Even though the fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism of that work or its author is permitted under United States law (17 USC 107), several venues for this criticism have a "remove first, ask questions later" policy that enforces a mandatory two-week downtime for any work that is the subject of a third-party copyright claim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112352</id>
	<title>Is Warner a Tea Bagger?</title>
	<author>hellfish006</author>
	<datestamp>1265987160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fix Old!  No New!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fix Old !
No New !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fix Old!
No New!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113978</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please remind us once again why someone who wants to get paid for work/services they provide is 'greedy',  while someone who expects to have whatever they want for free is not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please remind us once again why someone who wants to get paid for work/services they provide is 'greedy ' , while someone who expects to have whatever they want for free is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please remind us once again why someone who wants to get paid for work/services they provide is 'greedy',  while someone who expects to have whatever they want for free is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112738</id>
	<title>When will the madness end?</title>
	<author>Blimey85</author>
	<datestamp>1265989020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Pandora all the time. I paid the yearly fee and use the app on my computer as well as on my iPhone. One of the main reasons I bought an iPhone was because at the time Pandora didn't have an app for Blackberry. I've discovered a lot of music through the use of Pandora that I most likely would have never heard otherwise. I don't listen to the radio. Haven't watched any of the so called music channels on tv in years, not that they play music anymore though. Have I heard anything on Pandora that belongs to Warner Bros? I dunno. But if I have, if some of the music I've bought because I first heard it on Pandora and really liked it belongs to them, then they've made more money thanks to Pandora than just the advertising revenue. Pandora is a music discovery service. I put in what I like and it suggests other music which I then buy. Who is the moron at WB that doesn't understand that customers won't buy what they don't know about?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Pandora all the time .
I paid the yearly fee and use the app on my computer as well as on my iPhone .
One of the main reasons I bought an iPhone was because at the time Pandora did n't have an app for Blackberry .
I 've discovered a lot of music through the use of Pandora that I most likely would have never heard otherwise .
I do n't listen to the radio .
Have n't watched any of the so called music channels on tv in years , not that they play music anymore though .
Have I heard anything on Pandora that belongs to Warner Bros ?
I dunno .
But if I have , if some of the music I 've bought because I first heard it on Pandora and really liked it belongs to them , then they 've made more money thanks to Pandora than just the advertising revenue .
Pandora is a music discovery service .
I put in what I like and it suggests other music which I then buy .
Who is the moron at WB that does n't understand that customers wo n't buy what they do n't know about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Pandora all the time.
I paid the yearly fee and use the app on my computer as well as on my iPhone.
One of the main reasons I bought an iPhone was because at the time Pandora didn't have an app for Blackberry.
I've discovered a lot of music through the use of Pandora that I most likely would have never heard otherwise.
I don't listen to the radio.
Haven't watched any of the so called music channels on tv in years, not that they play music anymore though.
Have I heard anything on Pandora that belongs to Warner Bros?
I dunno.
But if I have, if some of the music I've bought because I first heard it on Pandora and really liked it belongs to them, then they've made more money thanks to Pandora than just the advertising revenue.
Pandora is a music discovery service.
I put in what I like and it suggests other music which I then buy.
Who is the moron at WB that doesn't understand that customers won't buy what they don't know about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112860</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>himitsu</author>
	<datestamp>1265989500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm one of those people that will just listen to Last.fm and whatever music I already have.  To me this reads like "Warner To End Any Chance of People Being Exposed to their Content".
<br> <br>
Good luck with that, as parent pointed out, it seems to be going great for the newspaper industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm one of those people that will just listen to Last.fm and whatever music I already have .
To me this reads like " Warner To End Any Chance of People Being Exposed to their Content " .
Good luck with that , as parent pointed out , it seems to be going great for the newspaper industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm one of those people that will just listen to Last.fm and whatever music I already have.
To me this reads like "Warner To End Any Chance of People Being Exposed to their Content".
Good luck with that, as parent pointed out, it seems to be going great for the newspaper industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112616</id>
	<title>Isn't there already a legal remedy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe Warner is ending their license, but can't the service just use the statutory license with SoundExchange instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Warner is ending their license , but ca n't the service just use the statutory license with SoundExchange instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Warner is ending their license, but can't the service just use the statutory license with SoundExchange instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113044</id>
	<title>Re:Arguing with the Internet</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1265990460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it." - Publius Syrius<br> <br>Definitely one of my favorite quotes from Civ IV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-p</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it .
" - Publius Syrius Definitely one of my favorite quotes from Civ IV ; -p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
" - Publius Syrius Definitely one of my favorite quotes from Civ IV ;-p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112686</id>
	<title>Re:What they NEED?</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1265988780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I *need* my music too, and am willing to pay a reasonable amount for it. But when they take away all reasonable ways to listen to music the only option they leave to their consumers is... *aaaarrrrrrg matey  TCP RST RECEIVED</htmltext>
<tokenext>I * need * my music too , and am willing to pay a reasonable amount for it .
But when they take away all reasonable ways to listen to music the only option they leave to their consumers is... * aaaarrrrrrg matey TCP RST RECEIVED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *need* my music too, and am willing to pay a reasonable amount for it.
But when they take away all reasonable ways to listen to music the only option they leave to their consumers is... *aaaarrrrrrg matey  TCP RST RECEIVED</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113102</id>
	<title>Does not apply</title>
	<author>TrashGod</author>
	<datestamp>1265990820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" in the US Constitution. I don't see "compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work." Mr. Bronfman is neither an Author nor an Inventor, and I can assure him that I do not enjoy any of his music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries " in the US Constitution .
I do n't see " compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work .
" Mr. Bronfman is neither an Author nor an Inventor , and I can assure him that I do not enjoy any of his music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" in the US Constitution.
I don't see "compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work.
" Mr. Bronfman is neither an Author nor an Inventor, and I can assure him that I do not enjoy any of his music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113494</id>
	<title>Bottled water, diamonds, music</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1265992440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These things -- bottled water, diamonds, and music -- have much in common.  The vendors of these products have created an artificial demand for a plentiful product. We are told that diamonds are exceedingly rare.  When someone invents a process to manufacture flawless diamonds, we are told that only "natural" diamonds are proper tokens of affection. Bottled water is the same.  We pay more for a gallon of water than for a gallon of high grade 93 octane gasoline.  The same with music. There is no shortage of great music. Sure, there are local bands that just suck, but there are many  of better talent than the few who the industry highlights.</p><p>Imagine if every slashdotter just replaced the contents of their music device with some local, unsigned, or "open" bands just for a few weeks.  Play only that music. Print the lyric sheets. Learn the songs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These things -- bottled water , diamonds , and music -- have much in common .
The vendors of these products have created an artificial demand for a plentiful product .
We are told that diamonds are exceedingly rare .
When someone invents a process to manufacture flawless diamonds , we are told that only " natural " diamonds are proper tokens of affection .
Bottled water is the same .
We pay more for a gallon of water than for a gallon of high grade 93 octane gasoline .
The same with music .
There is no shortage of great music .
Sure , there are local bands that just suck , but there are many of better talent than the few who the industry highlights.Imagine if every slashdotter just replaced the contents of their music device with some local , unsigned , or " open " bands just for a few weeks .
Play only that music .
Print the lyric sheets .
Learn the songs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things -- bottled water, diamonds, and music -- have much in common.
The vendors of these products have created an artificial demand for a plentiful product.
We are told that diamonds are exceedingly rare.
When someone invents a process to manufacture flawless diamonds, we are told that only "natural" diamonds are proper tokens of affection.
Bottled water is the same.
We pay more for a gallon of water than for a gallon of high grade 93 octane gasoline.
The same with music.
There is no shortage of great music.
Sure, there are local bands that just suck, but there are many  of better talent than the few who the industry highlights.Imagine if every slashdotter just replaced the contents of their music device with some local, unsigned, or "open" bands just for a few weeks.
Play only that music.
Print the lyric sheets.
Learn the songs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116326</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1266003180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure exactly how Spotify works, but this is what I like about last.fm. I pay three bucks a month to listen to music on their servers. There's no multi-month discount, so I have no incentive to renew for many months at a time.</p><p>If their library gets gutted by Big Music, the most I'm really out is three bucks, and I move my listening time and money elsewhere.</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure exactly how Spotify works , but this is what I like about last.fm .
I pay three bucks a month to listen to music on their servers .
There 's no multi-month discount , so I have no incentive to renew for many months at a time.If their library gets gutted by Big Music , the most I 'm really out is three bucks , and I move my listening time and money elsewhere.- RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure exactly how Spotify works, but this is what I like about last.fm.
I pay three bucks a month to listen to music on their servers.
There's no multi-month discount, so I have no incentive to renew for many months at a time.If their library gets gutted by Big Music, the most I'm really out is three bucks, and I move my listening time and money elsewhere.- RG&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112640</id>
	<title>parasites</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1265988660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>having an existential crisis is a good definition of humor, but its not a business plan</p><p>the only amount people will spend on music (apart from upper middle class westerners) is zero</p><p>and the internet makes it possible</p><p>you can't beat an army of technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers. your bought and paid for legislation is unenforceable. your garrison of lawyers can only catch clueless soccer moms and grandmothers</p><p>your only option is to fucking die already, music industry</p><p>the future is artists giving away their recordings for free, and making money via ancillary means like concerts, endorsements, advertising, personalized content, etc</p><p>there is no place for the distributor anymore. some of you will morph into promoters for pop fare. the rest, you've been replaced by the internet. fucking deal with it and die already</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>having an existential crisis is a good definition of humor , but its not a business planthe only amount people will spend on music ( apart from upper middle class westerners ) is zeroand the internet makes it possibleyou ca n't beat an army of technologically astute , media hungry , and POOR teenagers .
your bought and paid for legislation is unenforceable .
your garrison of lawyers can only catch clueless soccer moms and grandmothersyour only option is to fucking die already , music industrythe future is artists giving away their recordings for free , and making money via ancillary means like concerts , endorsements , advertising , personalized content , etcthere is no place for the distributor anymore .
some of you will morph into promoters for pop fare .
the rest , you 've been replaced by the internet .
fucking deal with it and die already</tokentext>
<sentencetext>having an existential crisis is a good definition of humor, but its not a business planthe only amount people will spend on music (apart from upper middle class westerners) is zeroand the internet makes it possibleyou can't beat an army of technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers.
your bought and paid for legislation is unenforceable.
your garrison of lawyers can only catch clueless soccer moms and grandmothersyour only option is to fucking die already, music industrythe future is artists giving away their recordings for free, and making money via ancillary means like concerts, endorsements, advertising, personalized content, etcthere is no place for the distributor anymore.
some of you will morph into promoters for pop fare.
the rest, you've been replaced by the internet.
fucking deal with it and die already</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112508</id>
	<title>Except it's not true</title>
	<author>aliquis</author>
	<datestamp>1265988060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Swedish text-tv had information yesterday/at night how Warner would cancel Spotify.</p><p>This morning however there was a new entry saying they where not and all their streaming services would remain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Swedish text-tv had information yesterday/at night how Warner would cancel Spotify.This morning however there was a new entry saying they where not and all their streaming services would remain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Swedish text-tv had information yesterday/at night how Warner would cancel Spotify.This morning however there was a new entry saying they where not and all their streaming services would remain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113470</id>
	<title>This is the result of freedom of choice</title>
	<author>Ngarrang</author>
	<datestamp>1265992380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before the internet, if you wanted to be a truly successful music group, you had to go to the labels.  Otherwise, there was no easy to way to get your music heard.</p><p>Now, anyone with a guitar and a microphone can record themselves and post it up for everyone to listen to.  There are some people that just shouldn't do this for lack of skill, but this IS a boon to the folks that do have some skill, but are ignored by the labels.  The technology is cheap/free to record, mix and render some high-quality original music.  You post it up to the 'net, advertise it and voila!  The listeners are there.  The listeners are the final judge.  When their only choices were what the labels told them was good, that is what they bought.  But, their available options are greater.  They have greater access to music that truly appeals to them.  They can now ignore more freely the crap they didn't really like in the first place.</p><p>The labels aren't paying attention.  They are looking at the wrong thing.  They are so focused on the decreasing sales of the current crap, that they are failing to see the greater choice in bands they could potentially sign and then control.  Find the music that the people are wanting to listen to, sign those bands.  You accomplish two things at once.  One, you have removed something from the market stealing from your bottom line.  Two, you are now making money from the fans of that band.</p><p>The big labels are just too big to see this, though.  I feel sorry for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before the internet , if you wanted to be a truly successful music group , you had to go to the labels .
Otherwise , there was no easy to way to get your music heard.Now , anyone with a guitar and a microphone can record themselves and post it up for everyone to listen to .
There are some people that just should n't do this for lack of skill , but this IS a boon to the folks that do have some skill , but are ignored by the labels .
The technology is cheap/free to record , mix and render some high-quality original music .
You post it up to the 'net , advertise it and voila !
The listeners are there .
The listeners are the final judge .
When their only choices were what the labels told them was good , that is what they bought .
But , their available options are greater .
They have greater access to music that truly appeals to them .
They can now ignore more freely the crap they did n't really like in the first place.The labels are n't paying attention .
They are looking at the wrong thing .
They are so focused on the decreasing sales of the current crap , that they are failing to see the greater choice in bands they could potentially sign and then control .
Find the music that the people are wanting to listen to , sign those bands .
You accomplish two things at once .
One , you have removed something from the market stealing from your bottom line .
Two , you are now making money from the fans of that band.The big labels are just too big to see this , though .
I feel sorry for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before the internet, if you wanted to be a truly successful music group, you had to go to the labels.
Otherwise, there was no easy to way to get your music heard.Now, anyone with a guitar and a microphone can record themselves and post it up for everyone to listen to.
There are some people that just shouldn't do this for lack of skill, but this IS a boon to the folks that do have some skill, but are ignored by the labels.
The technology is cheap/free to record, mix and render some high-quality original music.
You post it up to the 'net, advertise it and voila!
The listeners are there.
The listeners are the final judge.
When their only choices were what the labels told them was good, that is what they bought.
But, their available options are greater.
They have greater access to music that truly appeals to them.
They can now ignore more freely the crap they didn't really like in the first place.The labels aren't paying attention.
They are looking at the wrong thing.
They are so focused on the decreasing sales of the current crap, that they are failing to see the greater choice in bands they could potentially sign and then control.
Find the music that the people are wanting to listen to, sign those bands.
You accomplish two things at once.
One, you have removed something from the market stealing from your bottom line.
Two, you are now making money from the fans of that band.The big labels are just too big to see this, though.
I feel sorry for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115118</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1265998440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were true and streaming services actually made a profit then the last thing they would do is pull out.  It's a simple business decision; if something doesn't turn a profit you stop doing it.</p><p>To put it another way; would you invest $100,000 in something that only pays out a few hundred?  Lady Gaga did:<br><a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/" title="paidcontent.org" rel="nofollow">http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/</a> [paidcontent.org]</p><p>You can't run a business like that.  Sooner or later they will turn off the lights, your employees will get tired of their pay checks bouncing and your mortgage company will foreclose on you.</p><p>So if you consider wanting to make enough to at least pay your bills "greed," color me greedy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were true and streaming services actually made a profit then the last thing they would do is pull out .
It 's a simple business decision ; if something does n't turn a profit you stop doing it.To put it another way ; would you invest $ 100,000 in something that only pays out a few hundred ?
Lady Gaga did : http : //paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/ [ paidcontent.org ] You ca n't run a business like that .
Sooner or later they will turn off the lights , your employees will get tired of their pay checks bouncing and your mortgage company will foreclose on you.So if you consider wanting to make enough to at least pay your bills " greed , " color me greedy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were true and streaming services actually made a profit then the last thing they would do is pull out.
It's a simple business decision; if something doesn't turn a profit you stop doing it.To put it another way; would you invest $100,000 in something that only pays out a few hundred?
Lady Gaga did:http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/ [paidcontent.org]You can't run a business like that.
Sooner or later they will turn off the lights, your employees will get tired of their pay checks bouncing and your mortgage company will foreclose on you.So if you consider wanting to make enough to at least pay your bills "greed," color me greedy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113632</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265993040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>iTunes tells you to back up your music and app library. You encouraged her to purchase them, but not properly store them. While the physical media is different (and yes bandwidth does have a cost), if I put my CDs out on my roof and they get destroyed, Best Buy won't replace them for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes tells you to back up your music and app library .
You encouraged her to purchase them , but not properly store them .
While the physical media is different ( and yes bandwidth does have a cost ) , if I put my CDs out on my roof and they get destroyed , Best Buy wo n't replace them for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes tells you to back up your music and app library.
You encouraged her to purchase them, but not properly store them.
While the physical media is different (and yes bandwidth does have a cost), if I put my CDs out on my roof and they get destroyed, Best Buy won't replace them for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113814</id>
	<title>Listening and puchasing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last year, I figure I spent close to $5000 on music (II am a Neanderthal collector).</p><p>And what informed a lot of those purchases? Listening to new music on Youtube, streaming networks, and sometimes Myspace.</p><p>And I can tell you straight up musicians who don't have a strong presence on the web got nary a red cent from me simply because <i>I never knew they existed</i>.</p><p>There are <i>billions</i> of recordings out there. I have become slightly dejected at the idea that I will never live long enough to hear a fraction of the best music available to me, but still, there is more than enough music to sort through. And way too much to purchase.</p><p>When a company like Warner performs a move like this, they figure they are increasing the value of the titles they own through exclusivity. Bzzzzt! Wrong: you have just removed those titles from my vocabulary, and any hope of me purchasing said titles drifts completely off the radar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year , I figure I spent close to $ 5000 on music ( II am a Neanderthal collector ) .And what informed a lot of those purchases ?
Listening to new music on Youtube , streaming networks , and sometimes Myspace.And I can tell you straight up musicians who do n't have a strong presence on the web got nary a red cent from me simply because I never knew they existed.There are billions of recordings out there .
I have become slightly dejected at the idea that I will never live long enough to hear a fraction of the best music available to me , but still , there is more than enough music to sort through .
And way too much to purchase.When a company like Warner performs a move like this , they figure they are increasing the value of the titles they own through exclusivity .
Bzzzzt ! Wrong : you have just removed those titles from my vocabulary , and any hope of me purchasing said titles drifts completely off the radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year, I figure I spent close to $5000 on music (II am a Neanderthal collector).And what informed a lot of those purchases?
Listening to new music on Youtube, streaming networks, and sometimes Myspace.And I can tell you straight up musicians who don't have a strong presence on the web got nary a red cent from me simply because I never knew they existed.There are billions of recordings out there.
I have become slightly dejected at the idea that I will never live long enough to hear a fraction of the best music available to me, but still, there is more than enough music to sort through.
And way too much to purchase.When a company like Warner performs a move like this, they figure they are increasing the value of the titles they own through exclusivity.
Bzzzzt! Wrong: you have just removed those titles from my vocabulary, and any hope of me purchasing said titles drifts completely off the radar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115176</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>Croakus</author>
	<datestamp>1265998800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, from what I've heard it pays WAY less.<br><a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/" title="paidcontent.org" rel="nofollow">http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/</a> [paidcontent.org]</p><p>Looks like a simple business decision to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , from what I 've heard it pays WAY less.http : //paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/ [ paidcontent.org ] Looks like a simple business decision to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, from what I've heard it pays WAY less.http://paidcontent.org/article/419-fair-dos-a-million-spotify-streams-earned-gaga-167/ [paidcontent.org]Looks like a simple business decision to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114182</id>
	<title>Re:Good news really</title>
	<author>thedonger</author>
	<datestamp>1265995080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed' one.</p></div><p>And while we wait for legalized torrents all we'll get is medical torrents?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents ' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed ' one.And while we wait for legalized torrents all we 'll get is medical torrents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed' one.And while we wait for legalized torrents all we'll get is medical torrents?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115874</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266001440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Warner rep then continued: "After we've run these Internet fucks out of business, we're going to take a hard look at this thing called 'radio'. Did you know we don't get ANY money when they play our songs? And don't even get me STARTED about whatever the hell this thing called a 'library' is."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Warner rep then continued : " After we 've run these Internet fucks out of business , we 're going to take a hard look at this thing called 'radio' .
Did you know we do n't get ANY money when they play our songs ?
And do n't even get me STARTED about whatever the hell this thing called a 'library ' is .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Warner rep then continued: "After we've run these Internet fucks out of business, we're going to take a hard look at this thing called 'radio'.
Did you know we don't get ANY money when they play our songs?
And don't even get me STARTED about whatever the hell this thing called a 'library' is.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114050</id>
	<title>Big corp / small corp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big corps are a lot slower on the uptake, requiring massive change to several thousand people and not to mention investors to make a simple change. That is why it's always best to build in open mindedness into the business model from the get-go, like Google. Not to mention the fact that Warner has a clue from it's experience with AOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big corps are a lot slower on the uptake , requiring massive change to several thousand people and not to mention investors to make a simple change .
That is why it 's always best to build in open mindedness into the business model from the get-go , like Google .
Not to mention the fact that Warner has a clue from it 's experience with AOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big corps are a lot slower on the uptake, requiring massive change to several thousand people and not to mention investors to make a simple change.
That is why it's always best to build in open mindedness into the business model from the get-go, like Google.
Not to mention the fact that Warner has a clue from it's experience with AOL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116226</id>
	<title>Re:Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1266002700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...</p></div><p>I'm starting to think that is the plan.</p><p>Piracy has been the best thing to the music industry since, well, ever.</p><p>Before, they would charge maybe $10 per CD.  These days easily up to $20 for the same CD.<br>With piracy in the picture, they got laws put in place so they can get just a few grand under a quarter million dollars for that one CD.</p><p>But when all they have to do is make it very difficult, or in this case impossible, to actually give them money for their product, in order to get $250000 for a $20 item, there is zero doubt in my mind this plan is working for them exactly as desired and that they planned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void ?
...because I 'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...I 'm starting to think that is the plan.Piracy has been the best thing to the music industry since , well , ever.Before , they would charge maybe $ 10 per CD .
These days easily up to $ 20 for the same CD.With piracy in the picture , they got laws put in place so they can get just a few grand under a quarter million dollars for that one CD.But when all they have to do is make it very difficult , or in this case impossible , to actually give them money for their product , in order to get $ 250000 for a $ 20 item , there is zero doubt in my mind this plan is working for them exactly as desired and that they planned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they hope legal purchases will fill the void?
...because I'm pretty sure this will only boost piracy...I'm starting to think that is the plan.Piracy has been the best thing to the music industry since, well, ever.Before, they would charge maybe $10 per CD.
These days easily up to $20 for the same CD.With piracy in the picture, they got laws put in place so they can get just a few grand under a quarter million dollars for that one CD.But when all they have to do is make it very difficult, or in this case impossible, to actually give them money for their product, in order to get $250000 for a $20 item, there is zero doubt in my mind this plan is working for them exactly as desired and that they planned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113368</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>Xacid</author>
	<datestamp>1265991960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glad someone wrote this for me. Saved me some ranting. It's that craptastic mentality that shoved the consumer into piracy in the first place. 20 dollars still for a friggin cd? Come on guys. And why does't music depreciate? What's up with that? No, you're paying for the *enjoyment* of that music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad someone wrote this for me .
Saved me some ranting .
It 's that craptastic mentality that shoved the consumer into piracy in the first place .
20 dollars still for a friggin cd ?
Come on guys .
And why does't music depreciate ?
What 's up with that ?
No , you 're paying for the * enjoyment * of that music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad someone wrote this for me.
Saved me some ranting.
It's that craptastic mentality that shoved the consumer into piracy in the first place.
20 dollars still for a friggin cd?
Come on guys.
And why does't music depreciate?
What's up with that?
No, you're paying for the *enjoyment* of that music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31119120</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had the same thing happen with direct2drive. my HD crashed and I couldn't reinstall neverwinter nights or re-download it. I won't use that service again. I actually backed up the download file too. It wouldn't reinstall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had the same thing happen with direct2drive .
my HD crashed and I could n't reinstall neverwinter nights or re-download it .
I wo n't use that service again .
I actually backed up the download file too .
It would n't reinstall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had the same thing happen with direct2drive.
my HD crashed and I couldn't reinstall neverwinter nights or re-download it.
I won't use that service again.
I actually backed up the download file too.
It wouldn't reinstall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113916</id>
	<title>Re:Arguing with the Internet</title>
	<author>Goateee</author>
	<datestamp>1265994120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Good streaming options is the only thing making me not just downloading the music, because good streaming options are not yet available for pirates. If utorrent or similar gains streaming abilitys and can linkify the content and information about the music/movies, as it is in spotify, it will bypass their block on legal streaming. And if these companies dont have any similar good streaming options before that happens, I think they will lose out on alot of this market and have a hard time regaining it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Good streaming options is the only thing making me not just downloading the music , because good streaming options are not yet available for pirates .
If utorrent or similar gains streaming abilitys and can linkify the content and information about the music/movies , as it is in spotify , it will bypass their block on legal streaming .
And if these companies dont have any similar good streaming options before that happens , I think they will lose out on alot of this market and have a hard time regaining it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Good streaming options is the only thing making me not just downloading the music, because good streaming options are not yet available for pirates.
If utorrent or similar gains streaming abilitys and can linkify the content and information about the music/movies, as it is in spotify, it will bypass their block on legal streaming.
And if these companies dont have any similar good streaming options before that happens, I think they will lose out on alot of this market and have a hard time regaining it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113318</id>
	<title>Re:Arguing with the Internet</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1265991720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they think losing money to free internet streams is bad, just wait until he hears about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio" title="wikipedia.org">this new technology</a> [wikipedia.org]. The music industry doesn't stand a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they think losing money to free internet streams is bad , just wait until he hears about this new technology [ wikipedia.org ] .
The music industry does n't stand a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they think losing money to free internet streams is bad, just wait until he hears about this new technology [wikipedia.org].
The music industry doesn't stand a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112354</id>
	<title>For the masses ears</title>
	<author>auLucifer</author>
	<datestamp>1265987160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting your song out for the masses to hear and possibly buy is clearly bad for business. <br>
<br>I wonder what the radio stations pay to play if Internet radio just isn't paying enough?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting your song out for the masses to hear and possibly buy is clearly bad for business .
I wonder what the radio stations pay to play if Internet radio just is n't paying enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting your song out for the masses to hear and possibly buy is clearly bad for business.
I wonder what the radio stations pay to play if Internet radio just isn't paying enough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31124726</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>MacWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1266000660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are.</i></p><p>And also how stupid they are.</p><p>Very few songs will win you over on the first play. Payola was popular to get repetition, to shove a song down your throat until it starts to taste good. Despite being illegal, that <b>did</b> sell records.</p><p>So now their plan is not only to avoid repetition, they don't want you to hear the songs at all. Another stroke of Bronfman genius. Not surprisingly, this approach does not sell records. That's okay, too, because Bronfman still wants to run the infamous $5 a month plan, except now you would only get Warner artists. So who needs records?</p><p>But Warner could end up with EMI's catalog, since EMI is broke. Guy Hands, the CEO of Terra Firma, which bought EMI a few years back, is under pressure from Citibank to sell it. Hands would like to see it go to Warner Music.</p><p>The only reason I brought up the last paragraph was to point out that Mr. Hands is a huge fan of -- karaoke. This goes a long way in explaining EMI's demise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are.And also how stupid they are.Very few songs will win you over on the first play .
Payola was popular to get repetition , to shove a song down your throat until it starts to taste good .
Despite being illegal , that did sell records.So now their plan is not only to avoid repetition , they do n't want you to hear the songs at all .
Another stroke of Bronfman genius .
Not surprisingly , this approach does not sell records .
That 's okay , too , because Bronfman still wants to run the infamous $ 5 a month plan , except now you would only get Warner artists .
So who needs records ? But Warner could end up with EMI 's catalog , since EMI is broke .
Guy Hands , the CEO of Terra Firma , which bought EMI a few years back , is under pressure from Citibank to sell it .
Hands would like to see it go to Warner Music.The only reason I brought up the last paragraph was to point out that Mr. Hands is a huge fan of -- karaoke .
This goes a long way in explaining EMI 's demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are.And also how stupid they are.Very few songs will win you over on the first play.
Payola was popular to get repetition, to shove a song down your throat until it starts to taste good.
Despite being illegal, that did sell records.So now their plan is not only to avoid repetition, they don't want you to hear the songs at all.
Another stroke of Bronfman genius.
Not surprisingly, this approach does not sell records.
That's okay, too, because Bronfman still wants to run the infamous $5 a month plan, except now you would only get Warner artists.
So who needs records?But Warner could end up with EMI's catalog, since EMI is broke.
Guy Hands, the CEO of Terra Firma, which bought EMI a few years back, is under pressure from Citibank to sell it.
Hands would like to see it go to Warner Music.The only reason I brought up the last paragraph was to point out that Mr. Hands is a huge fan of -- karaoke.
This goes a long way in explaining EMI's demise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31131808</id>
	<title>News flash: summary makes stuff up!</title>
	<author>jpallas</author>
	<datestamp>1266074340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.</p> </div><p>It might be that, but it's also a complete fabrication.  Here's what TFA actually said:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Free streaming services still pay royalties for each song played, usually supported by ads. But Bronfman contends that those royalties are far less than what Warner earns on download sales or from its cut of a monthly subscription.</p></div><p>Kind of different, no?  In particular, the one that <em>isn't</em> made up says nothing about "needing" compensation for "enjoyment," it just says they make more money doing it this way than doing it that way.  But that just makes them sound like good businessmen rather than social parasites.  That won't do at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this line... " Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work " - it 's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking .
It might be that , but it 's also a complete fabrication .
Here 's what TFA actually said : Free streaming services still pay royalties for each song played , usually supported by ads .
But Bronfman contends that those royalties are far less than what Warner earns on download sales or from its cut of a monthly subscription.Kind of different , no ?
In particular , the one that is n't made up says nothing about " needing " compensation for " enjoyment , " it just says they make more money doing it this way than doing it that way .
But that just makes them sound like good businessmen rather than social parasites .
That wo n't do at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.
It might be that, but it's also a complete fabrication.
Here's what TFA actually said: Free streaming services still pay royalties for each song played, usually supported by ads.
But Bronfman contends that those royalties are far less than what Warner earns on download sales or from its cut of a monthly subscription.Kind of different, no?
In particular, the one that isn't made up says nothing about "needing" compensation for "enjoyment," it just says they make more money doing it this way than doing it that way.
But that just makes them sound like good businessmen rather than social parasites.
That won't do at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112614</id>
	<title>Fuck em, who needs them anyway! ARRG!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm really getting sick of all this selfish industry news.  Look, it is simple.  We have the greatest tool the world has ever known to give our creations to the world and have it archived there for as long as humanity exists.  If a business can turn any profit and keep people employed while at the same time sharing it with everyone then that is even better.  They don't need record profits, they just need to cover their production costs and the salaries of their employees.  As long as they are making enough to do that they should be happy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really getting sick of all this selfish industry news .
Look , it is simple .
We have the greatest tool the world has ever known to give our creations to the world and have it archived there for as long as humanity exists .
If a business can turn any profit and keep people employed while at the same time sharing it with everyone then that is even better .
They do n't need record profits , they just need to cover their production costs and the salaries of their employees .
As long as they are making enough to do that they should be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really getting sick of all this selfish industry news.
Look, it is simple.
We have the greatest tool the world has ever known to give our creations to the world and have it archived there for as long as humanity exists.
If a business can turn any profit and keep people employed while at the same time sharing it with everyone then that is even better.
They don't need record profits, they just need to cover their production costs and the salaries of their employees.
As long as they are making enough to do that they should be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114200</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it not possible that ad revenues differ between FM radio and online streaming services? And that they just might differ *greatly*?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it not possible that ad revenues differ between FM radio and online streaming services ?
And that they just might differ * greatly * ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it not possible that ad revenues differ between FM radio and online streaming services?
And that they just might differ *greatly*?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113842</id>
	<title>Bronfman's bent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music on iTunes," said Bronfman.</p><p>My bet is that Warner is gearing up to get behind the iPad. Warner is currently eye-balling the inventory of EMI which will probably be on the chopping block once Citigroup takes possession of EMI from Terra Firma. And Warner stands to gain immensely from any success Apple has furthering the portable business-in-a-box model. And Apple has already succeeded in changing the valuation of the eBook without delivering a single device, and Bronfman's statement is all about iTunes. He's a mercenary gearing up for war, and 'free' is not in his arsenal.</p><p>Don't forget, Warner publishes all types of media, and the iPad will soon be delivering all of them, nearly anywhere and at anytime, to anyone who decides they should afford themselves the luxury. And Apple has reproven that it can change the digital media consumption game by increasing the price of e-Books without so much as delivering a single device to a paying consumer.</p><p>To me that's a game changer in one other respect. Increasing the price of any retail asset is supposed to be difficult if not impossible, according to the B-school pundits. But Apple, Amazon, Macmillan and the mainstreaming media all acted in unison to make it look like it's natural. Amazon only screamed for a day when it was thrown into the briar patch. And I haven't been treated to any meaningful portrayal of the response from any of the consumer class who own a Kindle or a Barnes and Nobel Nook-e.</p><p> -- <b> You there, on the chopping block...</b> <i>mind the shiny big sharp thing at the end of that hooded man's stick</i>. --</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music on iTunes , " said Bronfman.My bet is that Warner is gearing up to get behind the iPad .
Warner is currently eye-balling the inventory of EMI which will probably be on the chopping block once Citigroup takes possession of EMI from Terra Firma .
And Warner stands to gain immensely from any success Apple has furthering the portable business-in-a-box model .
And Apple has already succeeded in changing the valuation of the eBook without delivering a single device , and Bronfman 's statement is all about iTunes .
He 's a mercenary gearing up for war , and 'free ' is not in his arsenal.Do n't forget , Warner publishes all types of media , and the iPad will soon be delivering all of them , nearly anywhere and at anytime , to anyone who decides they should afford themselves the luxury .
And Apple has reproven that it can change the digital media consumption game by increasing the price of e-Books without so much as delivering a single device to a paying consumer.To me that 's a game changer in one other respect .
Increasing the price of any retail asset is supposed to be difficult if not impossible , according to the B-school pundits .
But Apple , Amazon , Macmillan and the mainstreaming media all acted in unison to make it look like it 's natural .
Amazon only screamed for a day when it was thrown into the briar patch .
And I have n't been treated to any meaningful portrayal of the response from any of the consumer class who own a Kindle or a Barnes and Nobel Nook-e. -- You there , on the chopping block... mind the shiny big sharp thing at the end of that hooded man 's stick .
--</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music on iTunes," said Bronfman.My bet is that Warner is gearing up to get behind the iPad.
Warner is currently eye-balling the inventory of EMI which will probably be on the chopping block once Citigroup takes possession of EMI from Terra Firma.
And Warner stands to gain immensely from any success Apple has furthering the portable business-in-a-box model.
And Apple has already succeeded in changing the valuation of the eBook without delivering a single device, and Bronfman's statement is all about iTunes.
He's a mercenary gearing up for war, and 'free' is not in his arsenal.Don't forget, Warner publishes all types of media, and the iPad will soon be delivering all of them, nearly anywhere and at anytime, to anyone who decides they should afford themselves the luxury.
And Apple has reproven that it can change the digital media consumption game by increasing the price of e-Books without so much as delivering a single device to a paying consumer.To me that's a game changer in one other respect.
Increasing the price of any retail asset is supposed to be difficult if not impossible, according to the B-school pundits.
But Apple, Amazon, Macmillan and the mainstreaming media all acted in unison to make it look like it's natural.
Amazon only screamed for a day when it was thrown into the briar patch.
And I haven't been treated to any meaningful portrayal of the response from any of the consumer class who own a Kindle or a Barnes and Nobel Nook-e. --  You there, on the chopping block... mind the shiny big sharp thing at the end of that hooded man's stick.
--</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112460</id>
	<title>More greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't the laws for streaming compensation just change in the US because labels thought they weren't being paid enough? Now they want more money? Oh well, it's their loss. Streaming is the new broadcast radio. It's how people are discovering new music these days. If you don't have your music out on these sites then your artists will have less exposure. This is great news for the other artists (on other labels and independent) who will now have less competition on the streaming sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't the laws for streaming compensation just change in the US because labels thought they were n't being paid enough ?
Now they want more money ?
Oh well , it 's their loss .
Streaming is the new broadcast radio .
It 's how people are discovering new music these days .
If you do n't have your music out on these sites then your artists will have less exposure .
This is great news for the other artists ( on other labels and independent ) who will now have less competition on the streaming sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't the laws for streaming compensation just change in the US because labels thought they weren't being paid enough?
Now they want more money?
Oh well, it's their loss.
Streaming is the new broadcast radio.
It's how people are discovering new music these days.
If you don't have your music out on these sites then your artists will have less exposure.
This is great news for the other artists (on other labels and independent) who will now have less competition on the streaming sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112416</id>
	<title>Does this mean they won't allow radio either?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is internet streaming any different than FM radio?  Good luck with that, Warner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is internet streaming any different than FM radio ?
Good luck with that , Warner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is internet streaming any different than FM radio?
Good luck with that, Warner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112684</id>
	<title>Re:Good news really</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1265988780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you say you hate something thats free?  If you dont like it then dont watch or listen to it!  There are some people I am sure that dont mind and deal with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you say you hate something thats free ?
If you dont like it then dont watch or listen to it !
There are some people I am sure that dont mind and deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you say you hate something thats free?
If you dont like it then dont watch or listen to it!
There are some people I am sure that dont mind and deal with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113324</id>
	<title>Re:Just a question, and thought..</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265991780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they should hire cheaper producers and engineers.</p><p>Or here's a novel idea:  Just put an artist in a room, with mic, and record direct to the hard drive.  It doesn't get any cheaper than that, and it's how it used to be done back in the 1960s and earlier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they should hire cheaper producers and engineers.Or here 's a novel idea : Just put an artist in a room , with mic , and record direct to the hard drive .
It does n't get any cheaper than that , and it 's how it used to be done back in the 1960s and earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they should hire cheaper producers and engineers.Or here's a novel idea:  Just put an artist in a room, with mic, and record direct to the hard drive.
It doesn't get any cheaper than that, and it's how it used to be done back in the 1960s and earlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115848</id>
	<title>Re:Bottled water, diamonds, music</title>
	<author>Dwarfgoat</author>
	<datestamp>1266001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I had some mod points right now...</p><p>My iPod/iPhone etc. are completely full of independent , unsigned artists.  I haven't bought a major label record in at least three or four years, but have bought at least 250 or so CDs (or digital albums) in that same time (and been comped at least as many more).</p><p>Most are from local bands, artists my band has toured/played with, and touring bands we've seen when supporting other local artists.  It's all about getting out there and seeing what's coming through your town.  There is so much amazing talent out there, schlepping it from city to city in a smelly van, who would love nothing more than to know that they've reached one more fan.  Patronize your local live music venues and get to know your local and regional acts.</p><p>Then comes the important part....educate your friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had some mod points right now...My iPod/iPhone etc .
are completely full of independent , unsigned artists .
I have n't bought a major label record in at least three or four years , but have bought at least 250 or so CDs ( or digital albums ) in that same time ( and been comped at least as many more ) .Most are from local bands , artists my band has toured/played with , and touring bands we 've seen when supporting other local artists .
It 's all about getting out there and seeing what 's coming through your town .
There is so much amazing talent out there , schlepping it from city to city in a smelly van , who would love nothing more than to know that they 've reached one more fan .
Patronize your local live music venues and get to know your local and regional acts.Then comes the important part....educate your friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had some mod points right now...My iPod/iPhone etc.
are completely full of independent , unsigned artists.
I haven't bought a major label record in at least three or four years, but have bought at least 250 or so CDs (or digital albums) in that same time (and been comped at least as many more).Most are from local bands, artists my band has toured/played with, and touring bands we've seen when supporting other local artists.
It's all about getting out there and seeing what's coming through your town.
There is so much amazing talent out there, schlepping it from city to city in a smelly van, who would love nothing more than to know that they've reached one more fan.
Patronize your local live music venues and get to know your local and regional acts.Then comes the important part....educate your friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112702</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1265988900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple isn't too bad in that regard.  I had some Futurama episodes that I lost when moving to a new computer, filled out the form and was able to redownload all them in about a week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is n't too bad in that regard .
I had some Futurama episodes that I lost when moving to a new computer , filled out the form and was able to redownload all them in about a week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple isn't too bad in that regard.
I had some Futurama episodes that I lost when moving to a new computer, filled out the form and was able to redownload all them in about a week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112528</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot, and stop treating customers like the enemy. "</p><p>The more important thing I want to know is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how many feet do they have to shoot? Surely they've run out of places to put the bullet by now unless they're putting the bullets through existing holes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Well, I guess that would explain why they seem pretty comfortable doing this by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot , and stop treating customers like the enemy .
" The more important thing I want to know is ... how many feet do they have to shoot ?
Surely they 've run out of places to put the bullet by now unless they 're putting the bullets through existing holes .
... Well , I guess that would explain why they seem pretty comfortable doing this by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I wish they would just friggin stop shooting themselves in the foot, and stop treating customers like the enemy.
"The more important thing I want to know is ... how many feet do they have to shoot?
Surely they've run out of places to put the bullet by now unless they're putting the bullets through existing holes.
... Well, I guess that would explain why they seem pretty comfortable doing this by now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112318</id>
	<title>What they NEED?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They NEED me to pay them?  Well I NEED to get my music for free!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They NEED me to pay them ?
Well I NEED to get my music for free !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They NEED me to pay them?
Well I NEED to get my music for free!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112978</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>organgtool</author>
	<datestamp>1265990100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That line reveals a lot about the character of this man.  It's bad enough we live in a society where people feel entitled to money for their suffering, even if it was caused by a freak accident or their own carelessness.  But this guy has a Pavlovian reaction to demanding money anytime someone feels any iota of enjoyment from his company's product.  I had no idea arrogance could be taken to such an extreme height.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That line reveals a lot about the character of this man .
It 's bad enough we live in a society where people feel entitled to money for their suffering , even if it was caused by a freak accident or their own carelessness .
But this guy has a Pavlovian reaction to demanding money anytime someone feels any iota of enjoyment from his company 's product .
I had no idea arrogance could be taken to such an extreme height .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That line reveals a lot about the character of this man.
It's bad enough we live in a society where people feel entitled to money for their suffering, even if it was caused by a freak accident or their own carelessness.
But this guy has a Pavlovian reaction to demanding money anytime someone feels any iota of enjoyment from his company's product.
I had no idea arrogance could be taken to such an extreme height.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1265990880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warner executives simply OOZE greed.  Seriously they leave a slime trail they ooze it so badly.</p><p>Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.</p><p>This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warner executives simply OOZE greed .
Seriously they leave a slime trail they ooze it so badly.Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warner executives simply OOZE greed.
Seriously they leave a slime trail they ooze it so badly.Streaming like last.fm and pandora are NO DIFFERENT than listening to the FM radio.This simply highlights how much of scumbags these people really are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113508</id>
	<title>Re:Just a question, and thought..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265992560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but the artists are the ones that are made to pay for all of those costs. Their contracts are set up so that every thing the record company spends is a loan to the artist, from recording, to manufacturing, to marketing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but the artists are the ones that are made to pay for all of those costs .
Their contracts are set up so that every thing the record company spends is a loan to the artist , from recording , to manufacturing , to marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but the artists are the ones that are made to pay for all of those costs.
Their contracts are set up so that every thing the record company spends is a loan to the artist, from recording, to manufacturing, to marketing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116626</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe try treating customers better?</title>
	<author>rliden</author>
	<datestamp>1266004560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to hear about that.  It really sucks you got shafted like that.</p><p>This is one huge reason why I buy my music from Amazon.  I am tired of buying the same stuff over and over as CDs wear out, formats change (albums, cassettes, CDs, etc), or digital files are lost.  Amazon music is DRM free and I can back it up.  If I do need to re-download my digital content again I can do that too.  I'm not sure if that is an unlimited feature, but Amazon hasn't complained to me yet or given me warning about not being able to download the albums again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to hear about that .
It really sucks you got shafted like that.This is one huge reason why I buy my music from Amazon .
I am tired of buying the same stuff over and over as CDs wear out , formats change ( albums , cassettes , CDs , etc ) , or digital files are lost .
Amazon music is DRM free and I can back it up .
If I do need to re-download my digital content again I can do that too .
I 'm not sure if that is an unlimited feature , but Amazon has n't complained to me yet or given me warning about not being able to download the albums again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to hear about that.
It really sucks you got shafted like that.This is one huge reason why I buy my music from Amazon.
I am tired of buying the same stuff over and over as CDs wear out, formats change (albums, cassettes, CDs, etc), or digital files are lost.
Amazon music is DRM free and I can back it up.
If I do need to re-download my digital content again I can do that too.
I'm not sure if that is an unlimited feature, but Amazon hasn't complained to me yet or given me warning about not being able to download the albums again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114246</id>
	<title>A subscription model for commodities...</title>
	<author>Tikkun</author>
	<datestamp>1265995260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...can make sense, if you make it competitive to other options available to consumers.<br> <br>

If you're charging $5-$10 a month to download 100s of DRM free mp3s per month that can be easily synced with mobile devices you may have a model on your hands. Want 1000s a month? Want 1000s a month and FLAC? $20 and $30 a month respectively.<br> <br>

The labels could make this work because:<br> <br>

1. People like novelty. Publish a great song this month? People stay subscribed.<br>
2. People like feeling like they aren't being taken advantage of. Being able to stop at any time and keep the tens of thousands of tracks you've downloaded removes the fear of joining in the first place.<br>
3. People like having their friends know what they like. Syncing up "official" subscriber downloads with social networking sites helps show who the "true" fans are.<br> <br>

Of course anything Warner does will suck, have horrible design, have tons of DRM and only work on Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...can make sense , if you make it competitive to other options available to consumers .
If you 're charging $ 5- $ 10 a month to download 100s of DRM free mp3s per month that can be easily synced with mobile devices you may have a model on your hands .
Want 1000s a month ?
Want 1000s a month and FLAC ?
$ 20 and $ 30 a month respectively .
The labels could make this work because : 1 .
People like novelty .
Publish a great song this month ?
People stay subscribed .
2. People like feeling like they are n't being taken advantage of .
Being able to stop at any time and keep the tens of thousands of tracks you 've downloaded removes the fear of joining in the first place .
3. People like having their friends know what they like .
Syncing up " official " subscriber downloads with social networking sites helps show who the " true " fans are .
Of course anything Warner does will suck , have horrible design , have tons of DRM and only work on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...can make sense, if you make it competitive to other options available to consumers.
If you're charging $5-$10 a month to download 100s of DRM free mp3s per month that can be easily synced with mobile devices you may have a model on your hands.
Want 1000s a month?
Want 1000s a month and FLAC?
$20 and $30 a month respectively.
The labels could make this work because: 

1.
People like novelty.
Publish a great song this month?
People stay subscribed.
2. People like feeling like they aren't being taken advantage of.
Being able to stop at any time and keep the tens of thousands of tracks you've downloaded removes the fear of joining in the first place.
3. People like having their friends know what they like.
Syncing up "official" subscriber downloads with social networking sites helps show who the "true" fans are.
Of course anything Warner does will suck, have horrible design, have tons of DRM and only work on Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31117792</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1265966040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.  Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.</p></div><p>It's a very economist way of thinking, and not necessarily wrong.  You maximize overall surplus when price is commensurate with value.  Consider a world where producers had an incentive to make products we would actually enjoy and use, rather than just flashy enough to make an initial sale.
<br> <br>
The big roadblock though is that such a model doesn't work in the real world.  It necessitates DRM, which is a dealbreaker for me and I imagine most of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this line... " Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each work " - it 's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking .
Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment , their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.It 's a very economist way of thinking , and not necessarily wrong .
You maximize overall surplus when price is commensurate with value .
Consider a world where producers had an incentive to make products we would actually enjoy and use , rather than just flashy enough to make an initial sale .
The big roadblock though is that such a model does n't work in the real world .
It necessitates DRM , which is a dealbreaker for me and I imagine most of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this line..."Bronfman contended that this revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work" - it's a complete summary of the way the labels are thinking.
Each time you do something - anything - that resembles enjoyment, their feeling is that somebody - somewhere - should be getting money from you.It's a very economist way of thinking, and not necessarily wrong.
You maximize overall surplus when price is commensurate with value.
Consider a world where producers had an incentive to make products we would actually enjoy and use, rather than just flashy enough to make an initial sale.
The big roadblock though is that such a model doesn't work in the real world.
It necessitates DRM, which is a dealbreaker for me and I imagine most of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113014</id>
	<title>If you really want to know what's wrong...</title>
	<author>trudyscousin</author>
	<datestamp>1265990340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...with Warners today, all you have to do is contrast this money-grubbing douche with the likes of Ted Templeman, Lenny Waronker, and Mo Ostin. These were guys who staged and kept alive a renaissance at Warners for over thirty years. They signed amazing people like Hendrix, Zappa, Little Feat, the Doobies, and that's just for starters. Ostin in particular was so loved that artists actually wrote songs for him.</p><p>But this moron...the only thing he's interested in--forgive me for the clich&#233;--is money for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...with Warners today , all you have to do is contrast this money-grubbing douche with the likes of Ted Templeman , Lenny Waronker , and Mo Ostin .
These were guys who staged and kept alive a renaissance at Warners for over thirty years .
They signed amazing people like Hendrix , Zappa , Little Feat , the Doobies , and that 's just for starters .
Ostin in particular was so loved that artists actually wrote songs for him.But this moron...the only thing he 's interested in--forgive me for the clich   --is money for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...with Warners today, all you have to do is contrast this money-grubbing douche with the likes of Ted Templeman, Lenny Waronker, and Mo Ostin.
These were guys who staged and kept alive a renaissance at Warners for over thirty years.
They signed amazing people like Hendrix, Zappa, Little Feat, the Doobies, and that's just for starters.
Ostin in particular was so loved that artists actually wrote songs for him.But this moron...the only thing he's interested in--forgive me for the cliché--is money for nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114992</id>
	<title>We now owe for pleasure derived from listening?</title>
	<author>etherDave</author>
	<datestamp>1265997960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because every time I listen to "Boris the Spider," I go into throes of ecstatic pleasure, the mad fits and aftershocks of which last for hours.
I must owe them millions.  I wonder what the going rate for particle of dopamine is?

Of course, if I have to listen to the crap my coworkers play on the radio all day, I think that maybe the record labels should owe ME a considerable compensation for my pain and suffering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because every time I listen to " Boris the Spider , " I go into throes of ecstatic pleasure , the mad fits and aftershocks of which last for hours .
I must owe them millions .
I wonder what the going rate for particle of dopamine is ?
Of course , if I have to listen to the crap my coworkers play on the radio all day , I think that maybe the record labels should owe ME a considerable compensation for my pain and suffering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because every time I listen to "Boris the Spider," I go into throes of ecstatic pleasure, the mad fits and aftershocks of which last for hours.
I must owe them millions.
I wonder what the going rate for particle of dopamine is?
Of course, if I have to listen to the crap my coworkers play on the radio all day, I think that maybe the record labels should owe ME a considerable compensation for my pain and suffering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112734</id>
	<title>$X profit  $0 profit</title>
	<author>ZorinLynx</author>
	<datestamp>1265989020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I get this... Right now WB is making *some* money from streaming sites. This money is 100\% pure profit, since all expenses are borne by the streaming sites. It's money flowing in that they have to do absolutely nothing for.</p><p>Yet they want to shut down their content on those sites. This will take their profit from some number X &gt; $0 to $0.</p><p>It will be a net loss for WB. No money at all from streaming services.</p><p>I'm not sure I understand their business model. How does this make sense? I thought the entire point of a corporation was to make money, yet they are making less money by doing this. The music industry is completely batshit insane!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I get this... Right now WB is making * some * money from streaming sites .
This money is 100 \ % pure profit , since all expenses are borne by the streaming sites .
It 's money flowing in that they have to do absolutely nothing for.Yet they want to shut down their content on those sites .
This will take their profit from some number X &gt; $ 0 to $ 0.It will be a net loss for WB .
No money at all from streaming services.I 'm not sure I understand their business model .
How does this make sense ?
I thought the entire point of a corporation was to make money , yet they are making less money by doing this .
The music industry is completely batshit insane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I get this... Right now WB is making *some* money from streaming sites.
This money is 100\% pure profit, since all expenses are borne by the streaming sites.
It's money flowing in that they have to do absolutely nothing for.Yet they want to shut down their content on those sites.
This will take their profit from some number X &gt; $0 to $0.It will be a net loss for WB.
No money at all from streaming services.I'm not sure I understand their business model.
How does this make sense?
I thought the entire point of a corporation was to make money, yet they are making less money by doing this.
The music industry is completely batshit insane!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112812</id>
	<title>Re:I smiled today, I must owe somebody money.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will I be compensated if I do not enjoy music and still have to listen to it? I thought so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will I be compensated if I do not enjoy music and still have to listen to it ?
I thought so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will I be compensated if I do not enjoy music and still have to listen to it?
I thought so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114572</id>
	<title>Since when has Warner put out any good music?</title>
	<author>McDozer</author>
	<datestamp>1265996520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I've seen it's all mainstream crap that I would rather than hear it either turn it off, if that is not an option....I get up and leave the room.  Although, I am quite an asshole when it comes to music.....being a musician and all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen it 's all mainstream crap that I would rather than hear it either turn it off , if that is not an option....I get up and leave the room .
Although , I am quite an asshole when it comes to music.....being a musician and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen it's all mainstream crap that I would rather than hear it either turn it off, if that is not an option....I get up and leave the room.
Although, I am quite an asshole when it comes to music.....being a musician and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112366</id>
	<title>oh noes!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes, nawt mah free muzac!!!<br>I wont let em take away mah muzac,<br>coz mah muzac iz mah prozac,<br>I want everythang for free,<br>I can haz free muzac,<br>I know you wanna be kul like me,<br>but you nawt trendy, you nawt in,<br>you aint even on ritalin,<br>mah peeps gonna rize up and take teh powar back,<br>coz we iz - oh shit, my mom's home early and i didnt go to skul today! bbl, i hopes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes , nawt mah free muzac ! !
! I wont let em take away mah muzac,coz mah muzac iz mah prozac,I want everythang for free,I can haz free muzac,I know you wan na be kul like me,but you nawt trendy , you nawt in,you aint even on ritalin,mah peeps gon na rize up and take teh powar back,coz we iz - oh shit , my mom 's home early and i didnt go to skul today !
bbl , i hopes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes, nawt mah free muzac!!
!I wont let em take away mah muzac,coz mah muzac iz mah prozac,I want everythang for free,I can haz free muzac,I know you wanna be kul like me,but you nawt trendy, you nawt in,you aint even on ritalin,mah peeps gonna rize up and take teh powar back,coz we iz - oh shit, my mom's home early and i didnt go to skul today!
bbl, i hopes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112524</id>
	<title>EMI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they're trying to imitate EMI's recent success.</p><p>For those who don't know, EMI, who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a &pound;1.5 billion loss over the last financial year. They currently look like they could very well be heading to bankruptcy.</p><p>At least if they do end up that way, that's what, 1 down, 3 to go?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 're trying to imitate EMI 's recent success.For those who do n't know , EMI , who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a   1.5 billion loss over the last financial year .
They currently look like they could very well be heading to bankruptcy.At least if they do end up that way , that 's what , 1 down , 3 to go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they're trying to imitate EMI's recent success.For those who don't know, EMI, who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a £1.5 billion loss over the last financial year.
They currently look like they could very well be heading to bankruptcy.At least if they do end up that way, that's what, 1 down, 3 to go?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264</id>
	<title>See!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We tried streaming and working with those filthy nasty people pirating our shows..  And it didnt work!  We need more laws quick!  We must stop those dirty evil pirates!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We tried streaming and working with those filthy nasty people pirating our shows.. And it didnt work !
We need more laws quick !
We must stop those dirty evil pirates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We tried streaming and working with those filthy nasty people pirating our shows..  And it didnt work!
We need more laws quick!
We must stop those dirty evil pirates!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113004</id>
	<title>alternative headlines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warner to stop advertising</p><p>Warner says "negative CPM ad rates are still too high"</p><p>Warner chooses to remove consciousness of their products from internet users</p><p>Warner to customers: just download the torrent</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warner to stop advertisingWarner says " negative CPM ad rates are still too high " Warner chooses to remove consciousness of their products from internet usersWarner to customers : just download the torrent</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warner to stop advertisingWarner says "negative CPM ad rates are still too high"Warner chooses to remove consciousness of their products from internet usersWarner to customers: just download the torrent</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278</id>
	<title>Arguing with the Internet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each work</p><p>Then they won't get anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual 's enjoyment of each workThen they wo n't get anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;revenue comes nowhere near what they need in compensation for each individual's enjoyment of each workThen they won't get anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113604</id>
	<title>Re:Unmitigated Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265992980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that streaming services are only as good as their content. Once upon a time, we all had our own MP3s and we didn't have to worry about some service hosting it for us (and their ability to keep the songs available). This is why I use <a href="http://www.sirenp.com/" title="sirenp.com" rel="nofollow">Siren</a> [sirenp.com] to listen to my own music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that streaming services are only as good as their content .
Once upon a time , we all had our own MP3s and we did n't have to worry about some service hosting it for us ( and their ability to keep the songs available ) .
This is why I use Siren [ sirenp.com ] to listen to my own music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that streaming services are only as good as their content.
Once upon a time, we all had our own MP3s and we didn't have to worry about some service hosting it for us (and their ability to keep the songs available).
This is why I use Siren [sirenp.com] to listen to my own music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112974</id>
	<title>Re:Just a question, and thought..</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1265990040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm also a paying Pandora member, and this decision just means that I won't be hearing Warner music.</p><p>Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also a paying Pandora member , and this decision just means that I wo n't be hearing Warner music.Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also a paying Pandora member, and this decision just means that I won't be hearing Warner music.Oh well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112724</id>
	<title>Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265989020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will give much more attention to indie bands!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will give much more attention to indie bands !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will give much more attention to indie bands!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114044</id>
	<title>Completely agree ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1265994600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But as others have said, it's *always* really been your responsibility to protect the goods you purchase.  If she had invested even $79 or so for an external USB hard drive (a lot less money than she spent on the music itself!), and did regular backups of her data to it, she wouldn't have had this issue in the first place.</p><p>I wouldn't get the ability for a "one time free replacement" of my collection of physical CDs and cassette tapes if they were all destroyed in a fire tomorrow, or they were stolen, or ??</p><p>On the other hand, I *might* have insurance that would pay for their replacement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and I suspect that's another thing we could start seeing more of, as things go digital.  Perhaps companies will start pushing insurance policies covering your expenses for intangible works, like software titles downloaded onto your Playstation 3's hard drive, or iTunes music purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But as others have said , it 's * always * really been your responsibility to protect the goods you purchase .
If she had invested even $ 79 or so for an external USB hard drive ( a lot less money than she spent on the music itself !
) , and did regular backups of her data to it , she would n't have had this issue in the first place.I would n't get the ability for a " one time free replacement " of my collection of physical CDs and cassette tapes if they were all destroyed in a fire tomorrow , or they were stolen , or ?
? On the other hand , I * might * have insurance that would pay for their replacement ... and I suspect that 's another thing we could start seeing more of , as things go digital .
Perhaps companies will start pushing insurance policies covering your expenses for intangible works , like software titles downloaded onto your Playstation 3 's hard drive , or iTunes music purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as others have said, it's *always* really been your responsibility to protect the goods you purchase.
If she had invested even $79 or so for an external USB hard drive (a lot less money than she spent on the music itself!
), and did regular backups of her data to it, she wouldn't have had this issue in the first place.I wouldn't get the ability for a "one time free replacement" of my collection of physical CDs and cassette tapes if they were all destroyed in a fire tomorrow, or they were stolen, or ?
?On the other hand, I *might* have insurance that would pay for their replacement ... and I suspect that's another thing we could start seeing more of, as things go digital.
Perhaps companies will start pushing insurance policies covering your expenses for intangible works, like software titles downloaded onto your Playstation 3's hard drive, or iTunes music purchases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112478</id>
	<title>Unmitigated Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The streaming services are doing all the work.  They host the songs.  They pay for the bandwidth they use.  Warner is doing NOTHING except giving permission.  After that, they pay nothing.  They do NOTHING.</p><p>Any money they get should be plenty, considering they do NOTHING for anyone.  It's literally free money.</p><p>This is pure greed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The streaming services are doing all the work .
They host the songs .
They pay for the bandwidth they use .
Warner is doing NOTHING except giving permission .
After that , they pay nothing .
They do NOTHING.Any money they get should be plenty , considering they do NOTHING for anyone .
It 's literally free money.This is pure greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The streaming services are doing all the work.
They host the songs.
They pay for the bandwidth they use.
Warner is doing NOTHING except giving permission.
After that, they pay nothing.
They do NOTHING.Any money they get should be plenty, considering they do NOTHING for anyone.
It's literally free money.This is pure greed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268</id>
	<title>Good news really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I Hate DRM and other client-side restrictions as much as the next guy on here but seriously it will be good to see the end of all those annoying, ad-supported Web 2.0 based 'download-it-every-time-you-want-to-listen' so-called 'streaming' sites with tons of animations and extra social crap you don't need.

<br> <br>

I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed' one. Just like when weed becomes legal there will be much less money to be made from growing the stuff, when torrents are legal much less money will be made from music. simple as</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Hate DRM and other client-side restrictions as much as the next guy on here but seriously it will be good to see the end of all those annoying , ad-supported Web 2.0 based 'download-it-every-time-you-want-to-listen ' so-called 'streaming ' sites with tons of animations and extra social crap you do n't need .
I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents ' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed ' one .
Just like when weed becomes legal there will be much less money to be made from growing the stuff , when torrents are legal much less money will be made from music .
simple as</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Hate DRM and other client-side restrictions as much as the next guy on here but seriously it will be good to see the end of all those annoying, ad-supported Web 2.0 based 'download-it-every-time-you-want-to-listen' so-called 'streaming' sites with tons of animations and extra social crap you don't need.
I think we should start a 'legalise all torrents' campaign similar to the 'legalise weed' one.
Just like when weed becomes legal there will be much less money to be made from growing the stuff, when torrents are legal much less money will be made from music.
simple as</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116458</id>
	<title>Re:This is what's keeping me from paying for Spoti</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266003720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't a company say that regardless, if they stand to lose business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't a company say that regardless , if they stand to lose business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't a company say that regardless, if they stand to lose business?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114142</id>
	<title>Birthing pains?</title>
	<author>Ocyris</author>
	<datestamp>1265994900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This one's been in labor far too long.   We need to perform a Caesarean section, stat!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This one 's been in labor far too long .
We need to perform a Caesarean section , stat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one's been in labor far too long.
We need to perform a Caesarean section, stat!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112370</id>
	<title>Don't mess with last.fm streaming Ahhhhh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warner, don't taze me, Bro!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warner , do n't taze me , Bro !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warner, don't taze me, Bro!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118340</id>
	<title>Re:EMI</title>
	<author>3vi1</author>
	<datestamp>1265967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; EMI, who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a &pound;1.5 billion loss over the last financial year</p><p>Oh noze, I don't mind EMI going under, but now The Beatles will have to record some new songs or they'll freeze to death on the streets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; EMI , who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a   1.5 billion loss over the last financial yearOh noze , I do n't mind EMI going under , but now The Beatles will have to record some new songs or they 'll freeze to death on the streets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; EMI, who own the likes of the Beetles records and so forth recently just announced a £1.5 billion loss over the last financial yearOh noze, I don't mind EMI going under, but now The Beatles will have to record some new songs or they'll freeze to death on the streets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112210</id>
	<title>Nobody cares</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go ahead, eat my balls.  You know you want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead , eat my balls .
You know you want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead, eat my balls.
You know you want to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360</id>
	<title>Just a question, and thought..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265987220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say I had a bunch of bits on my server.  Say those bits were recorded from people with talent and "permanently" placed on my server.  I also have the right to sell those bits to whomever wants them.</p><p>The best part here, if you want to buy my bits, I send you a duplicate copy at next to no cost to me.  Now you sell those bits or make money in/directly from them, I get a cut.</p><p>Now say a site out there wants to stream my bits to non-paying customers, but, I could see \_some\_ revenue from advertisements your site runs.  How is this a bad thing for me as the bit holder?  How is this hurting me?</p><p>Sure, I could let others stream my bits and get more money from them as they might have higher profit yielding business models.  But in the end, site y streaming my music with advertisements isn't really going to hurt my profit from site x that charges an up-front fee (radio is unreliable if you want to hear x and y songs).</p><p>I guess my open question, to the recording industry is, if you can stream your bits to everyone and expect \_some\_ compensation from each, why wouldn't you want \_everyone\_ to start offering your products at whatever profit they can gleam for you?</p><p>If you're worried about piracy, well, that boat sailed a long time ago.</p><p>Profit is profit.  You're not making a physical object that costs you x dollars.  You're allowing others access to your bits that cost you next to nothing to duplicate (although, I know it costs \_something\_, it will be a lot less than physical items).</p><p>Obviously, that was rhetorical as the Recording Industry will never respond to me.  But my own conclusion comes out as simple control, or at least their own illusion of control.</p><p>*Paying* Pandora Member/Customer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say I had a bunch of bits on my server .
Say those bits were recorded from people with talent and " permanently " placed on my server .
I also have the right to sell those bits to whomever wants them.The best part here , if you want to buy my bits , I send you a duplicate copy at next to no cost to me .
Now you sell those bits or make money in/directly from them , I get a cut.Now say a site out there wants to stream my bits to non-paying customers , but , I could see \ _some \ _ revenue from advertisements your site runs .
How is this a bad thing for me as the bit holder ?
How is this hurting me ? Sure , I could let others stream my bits and get more money from them as they might have higher profit yielding business models .
But in the end , site y streaming my music with advertisements is n't really going to hurt my profit from site x that charges an up-front fee ( radio is unreliable if you want to hear x and y songs ) .I guess my open question , to the recording industry is , if you can stream your bits to everyone and expect \ _some \ _ compensation from each , why would n't you want \ _everyone \ _ to start offering your products at whatever profit they can gleam for you ? If you 're worried about piracy , well , that boat sailed a long time ago.Profit is profit .
You 're not making a physical object that costs you x dollars .
You 're allowing others access to your bits that cost you next to nothing to duplicate ( although , I know it costs \ _something \ _ , it will be a lot less than physical items ) .Obviously , that was rhetorical as the Recording Industry will never respond to me .
But my own conclusion comes out as simple control , or at least their own illusion of control .
* Paying * Pandora Member/Customer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say I had a bunch of bits on my server.
Say those bits were recorded from people with talent and "permanently" placed on my server.
I also have the right to sell those bits to whomever wants them.The best part here, if you want to buy my bits, I send you a duplicate copy at next to no cost to me.
Now you sell those bits or make money in/directly from them, I get a cut.Now say a site out there wants to stream my bits to non-paying customers, but, I could see \_some\_ revenue from advertisements your site runs.
How is this a bad thing for me as the bit holder?
How is this hurting me?Sure, I could let others stream my bits and get more money from them as they might have higher profit yielding business models.
But in the end, site y streaming my music with advertisements isn't really going to hurt my profit from site x that charges an up-front fee (radio is unreliable if you want to hear x and y songs).I guess my open question, to the recording industry is, if you can stream your bits to everyone and expect \_some\_ compensation from each, why wouldn't you want \_everyone\_ to start offering your products at whatever profit they can gleam for you?If you're worried about piracy, well, that boat sailed a long time ago.Profit is profit.
You're not making a physical object that costs you x dollars.
You're allowing others access to your bits that cost you next to nothing to duplicate (although, I know it costs \_something\_, it will be a lot less than physical items).Obviously, that was rhetorical as the Recording Industry will never respond to me.
But my own conclusion comes out as simple control, or at least their own illusion of control.
*Paying* Pandora Member/Customer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115764</id>
	<title>Re:See!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266001080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree as well.  Pandora is somewhat controlled by the user, but then again, so is FM radio.  I choose what to listen to: Top 40, country, rock, etc.  Pandora offers more control, but there was user control all along.</p><p>Thanks to a lack of variety and poor quality product on FM, I have discarded radio outright.  Totally gone.  My car is connected to my iPod, and I listen to Pandora at home.  Therefore, the music industry's ability to reach me is limited to what I hear on Pandora.  In all other respects, my consumption of their product is limited to what I already own.</p><p>If the music industry thinks that by diminishing my choices on Pandora that I will somehow go back to FM or buy something I can't hear first, they are in for a shock.  My time is valuable, and I can cut my consumption of music to zero with no effort at all.  I have other things to do.  Don't tempt me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree as well .
Pandora is somewhat controlled by the user , but then again , so is FM radio .
I choose what to listen to : Top 40 , country , rock , etc .
Pandora offers more control , but there was user control all along.Thanks to a lack of variety and poor quality product on FM , I have discarded radio outright .
Totally gone .
My car is connected to my iPod , and I listen to Pandora at home .
Therefore , the music industry 's ability to reach me is limited to what I hear on Pandora .
In all other respects , my consumption of their product is limited to what I already own.If the music industry thinks that by diminishing my choices on Pandora that I will somehow go back to FM or buy something I ca n't hear first , they are in for a shock .
My time is valuable , and I can cut my consumption of music to zero with no effort at all .
I have other things to do .
Do n't tempt me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree as well.
Pandora is somewhat controlled by the user, but then again, so is FM radio.
I choose what to listen to: Top 40, country, rock, etc.
Pandora offers more control, but there was user control all along.Thanks to a lack of variety and poor quality product on FM, I have discarded radio outright.
Totally gone.
My car is connected to my iPod, and I listen to Pandora at home.
Therefore, the music industry's ability to reach me is limited to what I hear on Pandora.
In all other respects, my consumption of their product is limited to what I already own.If the music industry thinks that by diminishing my choices on Pandora that I will somehow go back to FM or buy something I can't hear first, they are in for a shock.
My time is valuable, and I can cut my consumption of music to zero with no effort at all.
I have other things to do.
Don't tempt me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31119120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31124726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31131808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31117000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31117792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_1323248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31117792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31131808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31117000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113386
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118140
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115060
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116016
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31124726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31118252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31113632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31114044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31119120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31115188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31116626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_1323248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_1323248.31112706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
