<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_11_1846211</id>
	<title>EMI Cannot Unbundle Pink Floyd Songs</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268336400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>smooth wombat writes <i>"Before the advent of iTunes and MP3s, EMI and Pink Floyd entered into a contract which stated that EMI could not unbundle individual songs from their original album settings.  This was insisted upon by the members of Pink Floyd, who wanted to retain artistic control of their works, which they considered 'seamless' pieces of music. However, with the advent of digital downloads, EMI has been selling individual songs through its online store.  Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales. Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35815847/ns/entertainment-music/">protected 'the artistic integrity of the albums.'</a>  Judge Morritt also ruled EMI is 'not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd's consent.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>smooth wombat writes " Before the advent of iTunes and MP3s , EMI and Pink Floyd entered into a contract which stated that EMI could not unbundle individual songs from their original album settings .
This was insisted upon by the members of Pink Floyd , who wanted to retain artistic control of their works , which they considered 'seamless ' pieces of music .
However , with the advent of digital downloads , EMI has been selling individual songs through its online store .
Pink Floyd sued , claiming EMI was violating the contract , whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums , not Internet sales .
Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band , saying the contract protected 'the artistic integrity of the albums .
' Judge Morritt also ruled EMI is 'not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd 's consent .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smooth wombat writes "Before the advent of iTunes and MP3s, EMI and Pink Floyd entered into a contract which stated that EMI could not unbundle individual songs from their original album settings.
This was insisted upon by the members of Pink Floyd, who wanted to retain artistic control of their works, which they considered 'seamless' pieces of music.
However, with the advent of digital downloads, EMI has been selling individual songs through its online store.
Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales.
Judge Andrew Morritt backed the band, saying the contract protected 'the artistic integrity of the albums.
'  Judge Morritt also ruled EMI is 'not entitled to exploit recordings by online distribution or by any other means other than the complete original album without Pink Floyd's consent.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443570</id>
	<title>See if I care...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I've already pirated their whole discography anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 've already pirated their whole discography anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I've already pirated their whole discography anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446050</id>
	<title>Dumb move.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1268308860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Floyd won their case, but this is going to cost them a shitload of money.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Floyd won their case , but this is going to cost them a shitload of money.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Floyd won their case, but this is going to cost them a shitload of money.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444292</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>egcagrac0</author>
	<datestamp>1268302080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could merge your PF music files together, so they play as intended, and possibly make edited versions of those few songs you want "in the mix" with more radio-ish fade-outs.</p><p>Somehow, I don't think they'd have such a problem if the entire album was offered as a single file (or possibly two, for the A/B sides), rather than discrete tracks.</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could merge your PF music files together , so they play as intended , and possibly make edited versions of those few songs you want " in the mix " with more radio-ish fade-outs.Somehow , I do n't think they 'd have such a problem if the entire album was offered as a single file ( or possibly two , for the A/B sides ) , rather than discrete tracks. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could merge your PF music files together, so they play as intended, and possibly make edited versions of those few songs you want "in the mix" with more radio-ish fade-outs.Somehow, I don't think they'd have such a problem if the entire album was offered as a single file (or possibly two, for the A/B sides), rather than discrete tracks..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447954</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1268320800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do or at least did with Walters. Walters has kept up the tradition with the Dark Side of the Moon tour and his next one, the Wall tour.<br>The Wall show was so big that they only played it in 3 or 4 venues with 5 shows or so each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do or at least did with Walters .
Walters has kept up the tradition with the Dark Side of the Moon tour and his next one , the Wall tour.The Wall show was so big that they only played it in 3 or 4 venues with 5 shows or so each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do or at least did with Walters.
Walters has kept up the tradition with the Dark Side of the Moon tour and his next one, the Wall tour.The Wall show was so big that they only played it in 3 or 4 venues with 5 shows or so each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444324</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1268302200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A symphony is sometimes broken up into different pieces..   it's all part of one master work but there are clear cut changes in the sound and mood.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A symphony is sometimes broken up into different pieces.. it 's all part of one master work but there are clear cut changes in the sound and mood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A symphony is sometimes broken up into different pieces..   it's all part of one master work but there are clear cut changes in the sound and mood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445264</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>barkingcorndog</author>
	<datestamp>1268305680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play. I love having my iPod on shuffle, except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa's Apostrophe.  When a tune like "Brain Damage" comes on, it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to "Eclipse", as opposed to <i>Floydus Interruptus</i>.</p></div><p>When that happens, simply switch your random mode from "songs" to "albums". I do that all the time.

Alternately, you can do what I've done in a couple of cases (Tool's Parabol/Parabola and Disposition/Reflection), which is to combine the two tracks into a single track using something like Audacity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd take that one step further , I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy " Continue on to next track " feature for random play .
I love having my iPod on shuffle , except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa 's Apostrophe .
When a tune like " Brain Damage " comes on , it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to " Eclipse " , as opposed to Floydus Interruptus.When that happens , simply switch your random mode from " songs " to " albums " .
I do that all the time .
Alternately , you can do what I 've done in a couple of cases ( Tool 's Parabol/Parabola and Disposition/Reflection ) , which is to combine the two tracks into a single track using something like Audacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play.
I love having my iPod on shuffle, except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa's Apostrophe.
When a tune like "Brain Damage" comes on, it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to "Eclipse", as opposed to Floydus Interruptus.When that happens, simply switch your random mode from "songs" to "albums".
I do that all the time.
Alternately, you can do what I've done in a couple of cases (Tool's Parabol/Parabola and Disposition/Reflection), which is to combine the two tracks into a single track using something like Audacity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442636</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because you wanted to play a 10 minute Rock Band song?  That's a lot of star power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you wanted to play a 10 minute Rock Band song ?
That 's a lot of star power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you wanted to play a 10 minute Rock Band song?
That's a lot of star power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443680</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268300160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales"</p><p>I am still trying to picture how you buy a single song from a physical album.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums , not Internet sales " I am still trying to picture how you buy a single song from a physical album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales"I am still trying to picture how you buy a single song from a physical album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448852</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268332320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are saying that information doesn't like to be anthropomorphized?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are saying that information does n't like to be anthropomorphized ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are saying that information doesn't like to be anthropomorphized?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442646</id>
	<title>A win is a win.</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1268340540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't prevent Pink Floyd from making a separate deal to sell individual songs. To me it's more about smacking down EMI for trying to bypass contract verbiage and I applaud that. It's nice to see that a judge thinks an artist's vision of their work actually counts for something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't prevent Pink Floyd from making a separate deal to sell individual songs .
To me it 's more about smacking down EMI for trying to bypass contract verbiage and I applaud that .
It 's nice to see that a judge thinks an artist 's vision of their work actually counts for something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't prevent Pink Floyd from making a separate deal to sell individual songs.
To me it's more about smacking down EMI for trying to bypass contract verbiage and I applaud that.
It's nice to see that a judge thinks an artist's vision of their work actually counts for something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445262</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1268305680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an artistic counterargument: musicians should be in control of the artistic presentation of their work.</p><p>Beethoven's symphonies have separate movements, but they're played together for a reason. The pieces fit together, and while they're wonderful in their own right they were put together very intentionally. Same with Wagner's operas. And the same goes with Pink Floyd. Now, Beethoven and Wagner don't have contracts that prevent people from butchering their work by playing only part of it, but Pink Floyd does and is right to use it.</p><p>Really, as a musician and composer I'd have a real problem with people playing only part of a piece. These things are often structured so that to play only the most popular part is to miss the whole point. There are compositions will spend most of the piece setting up just one astoundingly wonderful musical moment just a bit before the end of the work. That our current 1-3-minutes-or-less culture can't handle that is somebody else's problem, not mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an artistic counterargument : musicians should be in control of the artistic presentation of their work.Beethoven 's symphonies have separate movements , but they 're played together for a reason .
The pieces fit together , and while they 're wonderful in their own right they were put together very intentionally .
Same with Wagner 's operas .
And the same goes with Pink Floyd .
Now , Beethoven and Wagner do n't have contracts that prevent people from butchering their work by playing only part of it , but Pink Floyd does and is right to use it.Really , as a musician and composer I 'd have a real problem with people playing only part of a piece .
These things are often structured so that to play only the most popular part is to miss the whole point .
There are compositions will spend most of the piece setting up just one astoundingly wonderful musical moment just a bit before the end of the work .
That our current 1-3-minutes-or-less culture ca n't handle that is somebody else 's problem , not mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an artistic counterargument: musicians should be in control of the artistic presentation of their work.Beethoven's symphonies have separate movements, but they're played together for a reason.
The pieces fit together, and while they're wonderful in their own right they were put together very intentionally.
Same with Wagner's operas.
And the same goes with Pink Floyd.
Now, Beethoven and Wagner don't have contracts that prevent people from butchering their work by playing only part of it, but Pink Floyd does and is right to use it.Really, as a musician and composer I'd have a real problem with people playing only part of a piece.
These things are often structured so that to play only the most popular part is to miss the whole point.
There are compositions will spend most of the piece setting up just one astoundingly wonderful musical moment just a bit before the end of the work.
That our current 1-3-minutes-or-less culture can't handle that is somebody else's problem, not mine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444928</id>
	<title>Sex Pistols had EMI pegged long ago</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1268304240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>unlimited supply e.m.i.<br>there is no reason why e.m.i.<br>i tell you it was all a frame e.m.i.<br>they only did it 'cos of fame e.m.i.<br>i do not need the pressure e.m.i.<br>i can't stand those useless fools e.m.i.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unlimited supply e.m.i.there is no reason why e.m.i.i tell you it was all a frame e.m.i.they only did it 'cos of fame e.m.i.i do not need the pressure e.m.i.i ca n't stand those useless fools e.m.i .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unlimited supply e.m.i.there is no reason why e.m.i.i tell you it was all a frame e.m.i.they only did it 'cos of fame e.m.i.i do not need the pressure e.m.i.i can't stand those useless fools e.m.i.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444358</id>
	<title>Re:Song flow</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1268302260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records</p></div><p>Wow.  I'm surprised they'd claim that.  Isn't that.. <em>worse</em>?  Assuming the contract didn't have a "anything but records" section?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact , EMI tried to weasel out by saying they were n't selling recordsWow .
I 'm surprised they 'd claim that .
Is n't that.. worse ? Assuming the contract did n't have a " anything but records " section ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling recordsWow.
I'm surprised they'd claim that.
Isn't that.. worse?  Assuming the contract didn't have a "anything but records" section?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445272</id>
	<title>Re:Makes no sense</title>
	<author>karcirate</author>
	<datestamp>1268305740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, no radio stations signed any contracts with PF limiting how they can play their music over the air.
</p><p>Besides, even artists who "want to preserve their art intact" would be interested in getting the exposure from having (even) only part of a whole album played on the radio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , no radio stations signed any contracts with PF limiting how they can play their music over the air .
Besides , even artists who " want to preserve their art intact " would be interested in getting the exposure from having ( even ) only part of a whole album played on the radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, no radio stations signed any contracts with PF limiting how they can play their music over the air.
Besides, even artists who "want to preserve their art intact" would be interested in getting the exposure from having (even) only part of a whole album played on the radio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445180</id>
	<title>Um not quite</title>
	<author>sheph</author>
	<datestamp>1268305260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to go ahead and call BS.  What about Delicate Sound Of Thunder?  Or for that matter any time they've played live?  Do they play each album as a whole, or selections from each?  It's nice to see EMI slapped about, as they surely deserve it, but let's please dispense with the idea that this is all about retaining each album as a whole unit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to go ahead and call BS .
What about Delicate Sound Of Thunder ?
Or for that matter any time they 've played live ?
Do they play each album as a whole , or selections from each ?
It 's nice to see EMI slapped about , as they surely deserve it , but let 's please dispense with the idea that this is all about retaining each album as a whole unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to go ahead and call BS.
What about Delicate Sound Of Thunder?
Or for that matter any time they've played live?
Do they play each album as a whole, or selections from each?
It's nice to see EMI slapped about, as they surely deserve it, but let's please dispense with the idea that this is all about retaining each album as a whole unit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444276</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>tist</author>
	<datestamp>1268302020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>itwouldn'tbebecausethatlogicallyitmakes
sensetohavesomespacinginlongblocks
oftexttoseparateideaswouldit?
Itmustbebecausetheywantthepicessold
separatelyonewordatatimeheckweall
writeourcodethatwaytononeedforany
spacingorblocksormethodsjustpack
italltogether</htmltext>
<tokenext>itwouldn'tbebecausethatlogicallyitmakes sensetohavesomespacinginlongblocks oftexttoseparateideaswouldit ?
Itmustbebecausetheywantthepicessold separatelyonewordatatimeheckweall writeourcodethatwaytononeedforany spacingorblocksormethodsjustpack italltogether</tokentext>
<sentencetext>itwouldn'tbebecausethatlogicallyitmakes
sensetohavesomespacinginlongblocks
oftexttoseparateideaswouldit?
Itmustbebecausetheywantthepicessold
separatelyonewordatatimeheckweall
writeourcodethatwaytononeedforany
spacingorblocksormethodsjustpack
italltogether</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444618</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>in4mation</author>
	<datestamp>1268303160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never been to or seen a PF concert...
but I somehow doubt that they would actually play the whole album for song 1 till the last just because it is a piece of art.
Anyone know?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been to or seen a PF concert.. . but I somehow doubt that they would actually play the whole album for song 1 till the last just because it is a piece of art .
Anyone know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been to or seen a PF concert...
but I somehow doubt that they would actually play the whole album for song 1 till the last just because it is a piece of art.
Anyone know?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443194</id>
	<title>What about listening?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268298840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I allowed to LISTEN to individual tracks? Or must I listen an entire Pink Floyd album each time? Will the band sue me if I don't?</p><p>I'm quite afraid now that I might be liable if there is a power cut in the middle of listening to one of their albums.</p><p>Any legal advice would be appreciated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I allowed to LISTEN to individual tracks ?
Or must I listen an entire Pink Floyd album each time ?
Will the band sue me if I do n't ? I 'm quite afraid now that I might be liable if there is a power cut in the middle of listening to one of their albums.Any legal advice would be appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I allowed to LISTEN to individual tracks?
Or must I listen an entire Pink Floyd album each time?
Will the band sue me if I don't?I'm quite afraid now that I might be liable if there is a power cut in the middle of listening to one of their albums.Any legal advice would be appreciated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443884</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268300820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do programmers name their functions [semi]descriptively?</p><p>For an easy point of reference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do programmers name their functions [ semi ] descriptively ? For an easy point of reference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do programmers name their functions [semi]descriptively?For an easy point of reference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446548</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1268311200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The advent of itunes killed this.</p> </div><p>Bullshit. Many musicians make full albums and difficult, long tracks. Why would iTunes cause musicians to limit their music to a few minutes? If anything, digital distribution removes the limitations of physical media - so artists are now free to create albums that run much longer than 20 to 45 minutes, because there is no plastic to run out of.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.</p></div><p>Who the hell cares what music marketers think? I listen to musicians, not marketers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt. Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?</p></div><p>Yes. Why wouldn't they be?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advent of itunes killed this .
Bullshit. Many musicians make full albums and difficult , long tracks .
Why would iTunes cause musicians to limit their music to a few minutes ?
If anything , digital distribution removes the limitations of physical media - so artists are now free to create albums that run much longer than 20 to 45 minutes , because there is no plastic to run out of.Young music marketers do n't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.Who the hell cares what music marketers think ?
I listen to musicians , not marketers.Would Thick as a Brick , Tommy , Sgt .
Pepper , The Who Sell Out , Brain Salad Surgery , 2112 , Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new " single " only model ? Yes .
Why would n't they be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advent of itunes killed this.
Bullshit. Many musicians make full albums and difficult, long tracks.
Why would iTunes cause musicians to limit their music to a few minutes?
If anything, digital distribution removes the limitations of physical media - so artists are now free to create albums that run much longer than 20 to 45 minutes, because there is no plastic to run out of.Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.Who the hell cares what music marketers think?
I listen to musicians, not marketers.Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt.
Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?Yes.
Why wouldn't they be?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444580</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268303040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!</p></div><p>That's what she said!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes , fucker ! That 's what she said !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!That's what she said!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443552</id>
	<title>Floyd fans please help</title>
	<author>digitalhermit</author>
	<datestamp>1268299800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read on the Internet that The Wizard of Oz and Pink Floyd appear to have some interesting coincidences.  For a couple hours I've been listening to the soundtrack of the Wizard of Oz and staring at the album cover.  It's truly bizarre because after about twenty minutes the little prism thingy looked like it was floating in space. I don't get the "No place like home" piece at the end though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read on the Internet that The Wizard of Oz and Pink Floyd appear to have some interesting coincidences .
For a couple hours I 've been listening to the soundtrack of the Wizard of Oz and staring at the album cover .
It 's truly bizarre because after about twenty minutes the little prism thingy looked like it was floating in space .
I do n't get the " No place like home " piece at the end though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read on the Internet that The Wizard of Oz and Pink Floyd appear to have some interesting coincidences.
For a couple hours I've been listening to the soundtrack of the Wizard of Oz and staring at the album cover.
It's truly bizarre because after about twenty minutes the little prism thingy looked like it was floating in space.
I don't get the "No place like home" piece at the end though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31451794</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1268410140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this isn't really about the music.</p><p>Pink Floyd had a pretty clear contract. Along came the internet and EMI decided the contract didn't apply. The judge took a commonsense position that if the contract was explicit about not selling singles on vinyl - then there was nothing magic about mp3s which would suddenly make it ok.</p><p>or in other words 'EMI promised to not sell singles. Judge rules that selling singles online is not magically different'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is n't really about the music.Pink Floyd had a pretty clear contract .
Along came the internet and EMI decided the contract did n't apply .
The judge took a commonsense position that if the contract was explicit about not selling singles on vinyl - then there was nothing magic about mp3s which would suddenly make it ok.or in other words 'EMI promised to not sell singles .
Judge rules that selling singles online is not magically different'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this isn't really about the music.Pink Floyd had a pretty clear contract.
Along came the internet and EMI decided the contract didn't apply.
The judge took a commonsense position that if the contract was explicit about not selling singles on vinyl - then there was nothing magic about mp3s which would suddenly make it ok.or in other words 'EMI promised to not sell singles.
Judge rules that selling singles online is not magically different'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526</id>
	<title>Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>inio</author>
	<datestamp>1268340180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443576</id>
	<title>umm..  simply</title>
	<author>way2trivial</author>
	<datestamp>1268299860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rip your own album as a single mp3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rip your own album as a single mp3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rip your own album as a single mp3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444200</id>
	<title>Dont want no full albums</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268301780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i dont give flying fsck whether some band thinks that all the songs in their album are unparaleled pieces of art and worthy of praise. even if the band is pink floyd or any other established legend. i dont want to shell out cash for 10-14 songs, while i find only 2 worth paying for.</p><p>shove it pink floyd. shove it up your wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i dont give flying fsck whether some band thinks that all the songs in their album are unparaleled pieces of art and worthy of praise .
even if the band is pink floyd or any other established legend .
i dont want to shell out cash for 10-14 songs , while i find only 2 worth paying for.shove it pink floyd .
shove it up your wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dont give flying fsck whether some band thinks that all the songs in their album are unparaleled pieces of art and worthy of praise.
even if the band is pink floyd or any other established legend.
i dont want to shell out cash for 10-14 songs, while i find only 2 worth paying for.shove it pink floyd.
shove it up your wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448004</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268321160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Any other band and I'd call bullshit but Pink Floyd wrote albums, not songs.<br>I'm not even a big fan (I don't own anything by them actually) but I've been exposed to them enough to know that they're not just being assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Any other band and I 'd call bullshit but Pink Floyd wrote albums , not songs.I 'm not even a big fan ( I do n't own anything by them actually ) but I 've been exposed to them enough to know that they 're not just being assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Any other band and I'd call bullshit but Pink Floyd wrote albums, not songs.I'm not even a big fan (I don't own anything by them actually) but I've been exposed to them enough to know that they're not just being assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31454138</id>
	<title>Re:What about listening?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268421240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My legal advice to you would be to shoot yourself in the face with a shotgun, you idiot. And please don't breed, as your siblings/parents did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My legal advice to you would be to shoot yourself in the face with a shotgun , you idiot .
And please do n't breed , as your siblings/parents did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My legal advice to you would be to shoot yourself in the face with a shotgun, you idiot.
And please don't breed, as your siblings/parents did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443328</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>wayland</author>
	<datestamp>1268299260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>On the other hand, EMI (via their proxy, RIAA) lobbied for stricter copyright.&nbsp; Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine.&nbsp; If "taste of their own medicine for bad guys" trumps "copyright freedom", there's no contradiction in Slashdot's logic.&nbsp; It's kind of like how Alan Ralsky got sent a bucketload of junk mail, even though Slashdot is generally anti-spam.&nbsp; </tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , EMI ( via their proxy , RIAA ) lobbied for stricter copyright.   Now they 're getting a taste of their own medicine.   If " taste of their own medicine for bad guys " trumps " copyright freedom " , there 's no contradiction in Slashdot 's logic.   It 's kind of like how Alan Ralsky got sent a bucketload of junk mail , even though Slashdot is generally anti-spam.  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, EMI (via their proxy, RIAA) lobbied for stricter copyright.  Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine.  If "taste of their own medicine for bad guys" trumps "copyright freedom", there's no contradiction in Slashdot's logic.  It's kind of like how Alan Ralsky got sent a bucketload of junk mail, even though Slashdot is generally anti-spam.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444026</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1268301240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except Pink Floyd produced a product; and EMI marketed it.  Pink Floyd is the equivalent of an office worker in a megacorp.  They do the work, the CEO gets a huge paycheck.  Pink Floyd, however, did negotiate for a good contract; they have a contract, and it should be honored.  This follows both the wishes of those who put their own sweat and blood into the product AND the letter of the legal contract negotiated between them.  In other words, the big bad record companies are morally AND legally bound to NOT do whatever the hell they want.</p><p>
A full album costs roughly $15, or $8 as a bundle of MP3s.  Some cost $5 but you won't find Floyd in that range.  It adds up; but these aren't expensive goods.  Hell, I tend to buy whole albums because once in a while I find I like one song, and then after buying an album I realize there's 2 or 3 songs out of 10 or 15 that I like.  That's like 10 songs I paid for that I don't actually want!  But it's 2 songs I didn't even realize were there before that I enjoy.  This is a plus.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except Pink Floyd produced a product ; and EMI marketed it .
Pink Floyd is the equivalent of an office worker in a megacorp .
They do the work , the CEO gets a huge paycheck .
Pink Floyd , however , did negotiate for a good contract ; they have a contract , and it should be honored .
This follows both the wishes of those who put their own sweat and blood into the product AND the letter of the legal contract negotiated between them .
In other words , the big bad record companies are morally AND legally bound to NOT do whatever the hell they want .
A full album costs roughly $ 15 , or $ 8 as a bundle of MP3s .
Some cost $ 5 but you wo n't find Floyd in that range .
It adds up ; but these are n't expensive goods .
Hell , I tend to buy whole albums because once in a while I find I like one song , and then after buying an album I realize there 's 2 or 3 songs out of 10 or 15 that I like .
That 's like 10 songs I paid for that I do n't actually want !
But it 's 2 songs I did n't even realize were there before that I enjoy .
This is a plus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except Pink Floyd produced a product; and EMI marketed it.
Pink Floyd is the equivalent of an office worker in a megacorp.
They do the work, the CEO gets a huge paycheck.
Pink Floyd, however, did negotiate for a good contract; they have a contract, and it should be honored.
This follows both the wishes of those who put their own sweat and blood into the product AND the letter of the legal contract negotiated between them.
In other words, the big bad record companies are morally AND legally bound to NOT do whatever the hell they want.
A full album costs roughly $15, or $8 as a bundle of MP3s.
Some cost $5 but you won't find Floyd in that range.
It adds up; but these aren't expensive goods.
Hell, I tend to buy whole albums because once in a while I find I like one song, and then after buying an album I realize there's 2 or 3 songs out of 10 or 15 that I like.
That's like 10 songs I paid for that I don't actually want!
But it's 2 songs I didn't even realize were there before that I enjoy.
This is a plus.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446220</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1268309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".</p></div><p>WHAT THE FUCK DID EMI THINK THEY WERE DOING?!!1! DERP!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So rather than say " yay , Pink Floyd won !
" , we should be saying " what the fuck did EMI think they were doing ?
" .WHAT THE FUCK DID EMI THINK THEY WERE DOING ? ! ! 1 !
DERP ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!
", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?
".WHAT THE FUCK DID EMI THINK THEY WERE DOING?!!1!
DERP!!!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447104</id>
	<title>well how it is</title>
	<author>Me303</author>
	<datestamp>1268314260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>well how they then sell it on online?

how they price it, it is one song or it is a just album?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) or is they sell it on online at all anymore?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>well how they then sell it on online ?
how they price it , it is one song or it is a just album ?
: ) or is they sell it on online at all anymore ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well how they then sell it on online?
how they price it, it is one song or it is a just album?
:) or is they sell it on online at all anymore?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442698</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot.  Their contract doesn't have anything to do with their songs being on the radio.  It has to do with the distribution of the album by EMI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you think you 've made some sort of insightful comment you 're really just an idiot .
Their contract does n't have anything to do with their songs being on the radio .
It has to do with the distribution of the album by EMI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot.
Their contract doesn't have anything to do with their songs being on the radio.
It has to do with the distribution of the album by EMI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447080</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268314140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can buy music on iTunes?  I thought it was just for ripping these aluminum discs?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  Seriously, most people don't buy via iTunes.  they buy CD's.  Artists not catering to CD's have decided to not serve the major markets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you can buy music on iTunes ?
I thought it was just for ripping these aluminum discs ?
: ) Seriously , most people do n't buy via iTunes .
they buy CD 's .
Artists not catering to CD 's have decided to not serve the major markets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can buy music on iTunes?
I thought it was just for ripping these aluminum discs?
:)  Seriously, most people don't buy via iTunes.
they buy CD's.
Artists not catering to CD's have decided to not serve the major markets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445320</id>
	<title>Check out on Netflix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268305920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon. May shed some light for folks unfamiliar w/how these guys put albums together.</p><p>http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=60030169&amp;trkid=496682</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink Floyd : The Dark Side of the Moon .
May shed some light for folks unfamiliar w/how these guys put albums together.http : //www.netflix.com/WiPlayer ? movieid = 60030169&amp;trkid = 496682</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon.
May shed some light for folks unfamiliar w/how these guys put albums together.http://www.netflix.com/WiPlayer?movieid=60030169&amp;trkid=496682</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442930</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1268298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, I hate hearing money by itself. I really do feel that song loses all of its meaning when played outside the album</p><p>But no, the artists can say what they want and choose to sell their art in whatever manner they please. They can also tell you how to enjoy it.</p><p>But you. You are obviously not bound by the artists interpretation of their own work. If you disagree with it,agree with it, are apathetic towards the artists interpretation, its still art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , I hate hearing money by itself .
I really do feel that song loses all of its meaning when played outside the albumBut no , the artists can say what they want and choose to sell their art in whatever manner they please .
They can also tell you how to enjoy it.But you .
You are obviously not bound by the artists interpretation of their own work .
If you disagree with it,agree with it , are apathetic towards the artists interpretation , its still art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, I hate hearing money by itself.
I really do feel that song loses all of its meaning when played outside the albumBut no, the artists can say what they want and choose to sell their art in whatever manner they please.
They can also tell you how to enjoy it.But you.
You are obviously not bound by the artists interpretation of their own work.
If you disagree with it,agree with it, are apathetic towards the artists interpretation, its still art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445542</id>
	<title>Hey Mods!</title>
	<author>AcidPenguin9873</author>
	<datestamp>1268306760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not flamebait!  Calling someone a hypocrite using false facts and little to no coherent arguments == flamebait.  Calling someone a hypocrite with correct facts and sound arguments != flamebait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not flamebait !
Calling someone a hypocrite using false facts and little to no coherent arguments = = flamebait .
Calling someone a hypocrite with correct facts and sound arguments ! = flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not flamebait!
Calling someone a hypocrite using false facts and little to no coherent arguments == flamebait.
Calling someone a hypocrite with correct facts and sound arguments != flamebait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443696</id>
	<title>Re:Song flow</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1268300220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In general, I agree -- most Floyd songs don't work when pried out of their context, though there are exceptions. And certainly, EMI deserved the spanking that they, for once, got.</p><p>That said, every time I hear someone talk about "artistic integrity", I reach for my revolver. It's one of those bullshit art industry marketing terms like "authenticity" that doesn't actually mean anything. <i>My</i> experience of a work of art is internal to <i>me</i>. Sometimes I give a shit about what the artist was thinking, and sometimes I don't. Except for live performance art, once a work of art is done, the artist's role is done; all future action takes place in the senses and thoughts of the audience. If an audience member likes one panel of a triptych and doesn't care for the other two, why should they be bound by the artist's intent if they want to hang a print of just one panel?</p><p>The cult of the artist has acquired too many trappings of the religious cults of which it is an imitation. If I'm not going to kneel before God, then you can rest assured that Roger Waters isn't going to get a tip of the hat, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In general , I agree -- most Floyd songs do n't work when pried out of their context , though there are exceptions .
And certainly , EMI deserved the spanking that they , for once , got.That said , every time I hear someone talk about " artistic integrity " , I reach for my revolver .
It 's one of those bullshit art industry marketing terms like " authenticity " that does n't actually mean anything .
My experience of a work of art is internal to me .
Sometimes I give a shit about what the artist was thinking , and sometimes I do n't .
Except for live performance art , once a work of art is done , the artist 's role is done ; all future action takes place in the senses and thoughts of the audience .
If an audience member likes one panel of a triptych and does n't care for the other two , why should they be bound by the artist 's intent if they want to hang a print of just one panel ? The cult of the artist has acquired too many trappings of the religious cults of which it is an imitation .
If I 'm not going to kneel before God , then you can rest assured that Roger Waters is n't going to get a tip of the hat , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general, I agree -- most Floyd songs don't work when pried out of their context, though there are exceptions.
And certainly, EMI deserved the spanking that they, for once, got.That said, every time I hear someone talk about "artistic integrity", I reach for my revolver.
It's one of those bullshit art industry marketing terms like "authenticity" that doesn't actually mean anything.
My experience of a work of art is internal to me.
Sometimes I give a shit about what the artist was thinking, and sometimes I don't.
Except for live performance art, once a work of art is done, the artist's role is done; all future action takes place in the senses and thoughts of the audience.
If an audience member likes one panel of a triptych and doesn't care for the other two, why should they be bound by the artist's intent if they want to hang a print of just one panel?The cult of the artist has acquired too many trappings of the religious cults of which it is an imitation.
If I'm not going to kneel before God, then you can rest assured that Roger Waters isn't going to get a tip of the hat, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443842</id>
	<title>Good on Floyd!</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1268300700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, good for Floyd for kicking back.</p><p>Second, why not just limit Pink Floyd sales to whole albums? So hard?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , good for Floyd for kicking back.Second , why not just limit Pink Floyd sales to whole albums ?
So hard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, good for Floyd for kicking back.Second, why not just limit Pink Floyd sales to whole albums?
So hard?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447228</id>
	<title>Re:See if I care...</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1268315100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please send me a reply with your address in it.</p><p>As I've purchased their entire discography, I'm coming round your house to collect the money you owe me for subsidising your music collection... or just to beat the living shit out of you...</p><p>Sorry, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of hearing the crap from you "rebellious Robin Hood music Musketeers" thinking you're doing the world a favour... the fact is that dishonest twats like you have something to obtain freely in the first place only because people like me go out and buy it.</p><p>If you think something is too expensive then get a backbone, don't buy it, don't copy it and send the seller an email or a letter explaining why you think it's overpriced - that way, I won't get DRM foisted on me as an honest buyer because people like you give them just the excuse they need to do it to me in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please send me a reply with your address in it.As I 've purchased their entire discography , I 'm coming round your house to collect the money you owe me for subsidising your music collection... or just to beat the living shit out of you...Sorry , I 'm getting a bit sick and tired of hearing the crap from you " rebellious Robin Hood music Musketeers " thinking you 're doing the world a favour... the fact is that dishonest twats like you have something to obtain freely in the first place only because people like me go out and buy it.If you think something is too expensive then get a backbone , do n't buy it , do n't copy it and send the seller an email or a letter explaining why you think it 's overpriced - that way , I wo n't get DRM foisted on me as an honest buyer because people like you give them just the excuse they need to do it to me in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please send me a reply with your address in it.As I've purchased their entire discography, I'm coming round your house to collect the money you owe me for subsidising your music collection... or just to beat the living shit out of you...Sorry, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of hearing the crap from you "rebellious Robin Hood music Musketeers" thinking you're doing the world a favour... the fact is that dishonest twats like you have something to obtain freely in the first place only because people like me go out and buy it.If you think something is too expensive then get a backbone, don't buy it, don't copy it and send the seller an email or a letter explaining why you think it's overpriced - that way, I won't get DRM foisted on me as an honest buyer because people like you give them just the excuse they need to do it to me in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444402</id>
	<title>logical fallacies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268302440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a long and involved post, but it fails the logic test.  You have created a false dichotomy in that this is not an either/or situation.  There is also a straw man in there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a long and involved post , but it fails the logic test .
You have created a false dichotomy in that this is not an either/or situation .
There is also a straw man in there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a long and involved post, but it fails the logic test.
You have created a false dichotomy in that this is not an either/or situation.
There is also a straw man in there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444482</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1268302680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's already a Rock Band challenge available where you have to play all but one of the songs from Rush's "Moving Pictures" (no YYZ so a band singer won't get bored).  If you can get through that on the drums at a higher level, playing all of "The Wall" is like taking a nap.</p><p>Of course, all these will seem easy compared to the musical complexity coming this June with Rock Band:  Green Day.  (sigh)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already a Rock Band challenge available where you have to play all but one of the songs from Rush 's " Moving Pictures " ( no YYZ so a band singer wo n't get bored ) .
If you can get through that on the drums at a higher level , playing all of " The Wall " is like taking a nap.Of course , all these will seem easy compared to the musical complexity coming this June with Rock Band : Green Day .
( sigh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already a Rock Band challenge available where you have to play all but one of the songs from Rush's "Moving Pictures" (no YYZ so a band singer won't get bored).
If you can get through that on the drums at a higher level, playing all of "The Wall" is like taking a nap.Of course, all these will seem easy compared to the musical complexity coming this June with Rock Band:  Green Day.
(sigh)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443504</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of them, on the original vinyl, are one (or actually two) tracks. One section smoothly blends to the other. Even when there's an obvious separation point, they're related.</p><p>Who listens to just the second movement of a Beethoven symphony?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of them , on the original vinyl , are one ( or actually two ) tracks .
One section smoothly blends to the other .
Even when there 's an obvious separation point , they 're related.Who listens to just the second movement of a Beethoven symphony ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of them, on the original vinyl, are one (or actually two) tracks.
One section smoothly blends to the other.
Even when there's an obvious separation point, they're related.Who listens to just the second movement of a Beethoven symphony?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444140</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1268301600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And at the same time, I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners.  Heck, they're happy that they *have* listeners.  Ecstatic, really, in this day and age.  And I don't see composers whining about it, either.  Lord knows, if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote, if it is divided into movements, more power to them.  If I wanted it performed as a single work, I wouldn't have divided it up into chunks.</p><p>Heck, some of the most popular classical pieces of all time are small extractions from larger classical works---the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah, Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th, Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral from Lohengrin, Nessun Dorma from Turandot... the list is almost endless.  Although the whole of Messiah is frequently performed, the Hallelujah Chorus is performed far more frequently because it is more manageable---more performable.  Lohengrin and Turandot are seldom performed in their entirety, but those excerpts are popular band and solo vocal literature, respectively; I've personally played those excerpts several times in various ensembles over the past few years.</p><p>It has always been this way; large works endure in large part because they contain smaller works that are sufficient to stand on their own.   By claiming this so-called "artistic integrity", bands like Pink Floyd are effectively saying that they don't care if their works are remembered.  So be it.  I've forgotten you already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And at the same time , I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners .
Heck , they 're happy that they * have * listeners .
Ecstatic , really , in this day and age .
And I do n't see composers whining about it , either .
Lord knows , if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote , if it is divided into movements , more power to them .
If I wanted it performed as a single work , I would n't have divided it up into chunks.Heck , some of the most popular classical pieces of all time are small extractions from larger classical works---the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel 's Messiah , Ode to Joy from Beethoven 's 9th , Elsa 's Procession to the Cathedral from Lohengrin , Nessun Dorma from Turandot... the list is almost endless .
Although the whole of Messiah is frequently performed , the Hallelujah Chorus is performed far more frequently because it is more manageable---more performable .
Lohengrin and Turandot are seldom performed in their entirety , but those excerpts are popular band and solo vocal literature , respectively ; I 've personally played those excerpts several times in various ensembles over the past few years.It has always been this way ; large works endure in large part because they contain smaller works that are sufficient to stand on their own .
By claiming this so-called " artistic integrity " , bands like Pink Floyd are effectively saying that they do n't care if their works are remembered .
So be it .
I 've forgotten you already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And at the same time, I have never heard classical recording artists complain that their labels are making individual movements available to their listeners.
Heck, they're happy that they *have* listeners.
Ecstatic, really, in this day and age.
And I don't see composers whining about it, either.
Lord knows, if somebody wants to do part of a piece I wrote, if it is divided into movements, more power to them.
If I wanted it performed as a single work, I wouldn't have divided it up into chunks.Heck, some of the most popular classical pieces of all time are small extractions from larger classical works---the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's Messiah, Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th, Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral from Lohengrin, Nessun Dorma from Turandot... the list is almost endless.
Although the whole of Messiah is frequently performed, the Hallelujah Chorus is performed far more frequently because it is more manageable---more performable.
Lohengrin and Turandot are seldom performed in their entirety, but those excerpts are popular band and solo vocal literature, respectively; I've personally played those excerpts several times in various ensembles over the past few years.It has always been this way; large works endure in large part because they contain smaller works that are sufficient to stand on their own.
By claiming this so-called "artistic integrity", bands like Pink Floyd are effectively saying that they don't care if their works are remembered.
So be it.
I've forgotten you already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443538</id>
	<title>Artistic Integrity aka "It's about the money."</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1268299740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Face it Pink say an opportunity to get more money from EMI and possibly get back rights to their music by showing breach. It's about money nothing more, nothing less. Which one is Pink anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Face it Pink say an opportunity to get more money from EMI and possibly get back rights to their music by showing breach .
It 's about money nothing more , nothing less .
Which one is Pink anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Face it Pink say an opportunity to get more money from EMI and possibly get back rights to their music by showing breach.
It's about money nothing more, nothing less.
Which one is Pink anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443866</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1268300760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think this is bad? I wonder who Slashdot would side with if an evil record label went to court like this against Metallica.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think this is bad ?
I wonder who Slashdot would side with if an evil record label went to court like this against Metallica .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think this is bad?
I wonder who Slashdot would side with if an evil record label went to court like this against Metallica.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444656</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268303220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No contradiction.  EMI sure as heck would stick it to any artist who violated a term.  EMI can just suck this one up.  It is their own fault that the legal climate is such that a demand like this has any standing.  They made the rules.  EMI is hoist in their own petard, impaled on their own sword, and no one is crying foul over that.

</p><p>For the rest of us, yes, I'll listen (or not) to Pink Floyd music any way I want.  If I want to play it at 2x speed so they all sound like chipmunks, play it backwards and listen for satanic messages, chop it up, or whatever, I will.  I don't think PF has a problem with that, but if they do, I feel sorry for them.  They should be glad that people still care enough about the music to play with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No contradiction .
EMI sure as heck would stick it to any artist who violated a term .
EMI can just suck this one up .
It is their own fault that the legal climate is such that a demand like this has any standing .
They made the rules .
EMI is hoist in their own petard , impaled on their own sword , and no one is crying foul over that .
For the rest of us , yes , I 'll listen ( or not ) to Pink Floyd music any way I want .
If I want to play it at 2x speed so they all sound like chipmunks , play it backwards and listen for satanic messages , chop it up , or whatever , I will .
I do n't think PF has a problem with that , but if they do , I feel sorry for them .
They should be glad that people still care enough about the music to play with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No contradiction.
EMI sure as heck would stick it to any artist who violated a term.
EMI can just suck this one up.
It is their own fault that the legal climate is such that a demand like this has any standing.
They made the rules.
EMI is hoist in their own petard, impaled on their own sword, and no one is crying foul over that.
For the rest of us, yes, I'll listen (or not) to Pink Floyd music any way I want.
If I want to play it at 2x speed so they all sound like chipmunks, play it backwards and listen for satanic messages, chop it up, or whatever, I will.
I don't think PF has a problem with that, but if they do, I feel sorry for them.
They should be glad that people still care enough about the music to play with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444992</id>
	<title>What about Singles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268304480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When EMI released Pink Floyd singles, such as Money, Comfortably Numb, or ABitW Part 2, etc., wasn't that considered "unbundling"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When EMI released Pink Floyd singles , such as Money , Comfortably Numb , or ABitW Part 2 , etc. , was n't that considered " unbundling " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When EMI released Pink Floyd singles, such as Money, Comfortably Numb, or ABitW Part 2, etc., wasn't that considered "unbundling"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447318</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>zeugma-amp</author>
	<datestamp>1268315640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.</em>
</p><p>That probably just means you're too young to remember radio stations whose format was termed "album rock". I've heard Dark Side, Animals, Wish You Were Here, and Meddle all played as entire albums on the radio. DJs loved it back then because it gave them nice long breaks. These days where everything is computerized, it's not an issue. Hell, I can set my computer up on random play with no repeats and it'll run for a month before it runs out of material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio .
That probably just means you 're too young to remember radio stations whose format was termed " album rock " .
I 've heard Dark Side , Animals , Wish You Were Here , and Meddle all played as entire albums on the radio .
DJs loved it back then because it gave them nice long breaks .
These days where everything is computerized , it 's not an issue .
Hell , I can set my computer up on random play with no repeats and it 'll run for a month before it runs out of material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.
That probably just means you're too young to remember radio stations whose format was termed "album rock".
I've heard Dark Side, Animals, Wish You Were Here, and Meddle all played as entire albums on the radio.
DJs loved it back then because it gave them nice long breaks.
These days where everything is computerized, it's not an issue.
Hell, I can set my computer up on random play with no repeats and it'll run for a month before it runs out of material.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443356</id>
	<title>Makes no sense</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1268299260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pink Floyd songs are "unbundled" when they are played on the radio as singles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink Floyd songs are " unbundled " when they are played on the radio as singles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink Floyd songs are "unbundled" when they are played on the radio as singles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444320</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1268302140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.</em></p><p>Yeah, but see, the thing is, <strong> <em>I don't give a shit what Pink Floyd thinks.</em> </strong> I understand the artistic process, etc., but at what point does an artist just become an asshole and go from "this is what I intended" to "you are only allowed to experience my art in ways I dictate?" I thought the whole POINT of art is yes, the artist made something, but on the other hand, it is up to the viewer to take whatever he/she will from the experience? AFAIK, lots of art COMES FROM seeing one thing and doing something else with it. How many great things have we seen happen in the computer world, for example, when someone uses some hardware or software in totally unexpected ways? In fact, isn't that where MOST great things come from?</p><p>I don't care what PF wants. If I want to listen to "Comfortably Numb" for a few minutes and something else before and after, isn't that my right?</p><p>That said, as far as the contract goes, I go with PF and the judge on this one. Doesn't mean PF aren't pretentious assholes in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink Floyd 's music is meant to be listened to as a whole , albums are ( the good ones ) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.Yeah , but see , the thing is , I do n't give a shit what Pink Floyd thinks .
I understand the artistic process , etc. , but at what point does an artist just become an asshole and go from " this is what I intended " to " you are only allowed to experience my art in ways I dictate ?
" I thought the whole POINT of art is yes , the artist made something , but on the other hand , it is up to the viewer to take whatever he/she will from the experience ?
AFAIK , lots of art COMES FROM seeing one thing and doing something else with it .
How many great things have we seen happen in the computer world , for example , when someone uses some hardware or software in totally unexpected ways ?
In fact , is n't that where MOST great things come from ? I do n't care what PF wants .
If I want to listen to " Comfortably Numb " for a few minutes and something else before and after , is n't that my right ? That said , as far as the contract goes , I go with PF and the judge on this one .
Does n't mean PF are n't pretentious assholes in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.Yeah, but see, the thing is,  I don't give a shit what Pink Floyd thinks.
I understand the artistic process, etc., but at what point does an artist just become an asshole and go from "this is what I intended" to "you are only allowed to experience my art in ways I dictate?
" I thought the whole POINT of art is yes, the artist made something, but on the other hand, it is up to the viewer to take whatever he/she will from the experience?
AFAIK, lots of art COMES FROM seeing one thing and doing something else with it.
How many great things have we seen happen in the computer world, for example, when someone uses some hardware or software in totally unexpected ways?
In fact, isn't that where MOST great things come from?I don't care what PF wants.
If I want to listen to "Comfortably Numb" for a few minutes and something else before and after, isn't that my right?That said, as far as the contract goes, I go with PF and the judge on this one.
Doesn't mean PF aren't pretentious assholes in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443174</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268298780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.</p><p>Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists? information wants to be free?</p>  </div><p>You don't understand.   Slashdot hates Big Things.   When confronted with two Big Things, Slashdot will hate the bigger thing more.  That's why Slashdot hates EMI more than Pink Floyd.  Big Corporation, Smaller Artist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this , because they are standing up to the evil record label.Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels ( and/or artists ?
information wants to be free ?
You do n't understand .
Slashdot hates Big Things .
When confronted with two Big Things , Slashdot will hate the bigger thing more .
That 's why Slashdot hates EMI more than Pink Floyd .
Big Corporation , Smaller Artist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists?
information wants to be free?
You don't understand.
Slashdot hates Big Things.
When confronted with two Big Things, Slashdot will hate the bigger thing more.
That's why Slashdot hates EMI more than Pink Floyd.
Big Corporation, Smaller Artist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446854</id>
	<title>I Agree With The Mighty Floyd...</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1268312880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if you're stupid enough to part with good money just for the pleasure of having your hard disk heads move in such a way so as to create some crappy, lossy music files on your PC, then you're probably too stupid to appreciate their music...</p><p>Sorry, kiddies, but you need to face some facts - the vast majority of modern music is about elevating talentless people into the limelight as quickly as possible so they're too shell-shocked to demand too much in royalties; this maximises record company profits &amp; means they're also cheap to dump when they start getting too greedy.</p><p>This in turn implies that due to a lack of musical ability, they're incapable of producing music albums that have more than one or two good tracks on them, thus explaining why the modern "great unwashed" now want to treat music like "Pick N Mix" sweeties and just choose the tracks they like (which also happen to be the only ones that are any good).</p><p>So speaking as the complete and utter music snob that I am, let me sit here and do nothing else but enjoy my nice hi-fidelity, old-fashioned Pink Floyd music CDs from start to finish on my nice expensive hi-fi system whilst you children go off &amp; run around at the gym whilst listening to your "ever so modern" formulaic plastic music...</p><p>Rant mode disengaged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if you 're stupid enough to part with good money just for the pleasure of having your hard disk heads move in such a way so as to create some crappy , lossy music files on your PC , then you 're probably too stupid to appreciate their music...Sorry , kiddies , but you need to face some facts - the vast majority of modern music is about elevating talentless people into the limelight as quickly as possible so they 're too shell-shocked to demand too much in royalties ; this maximises record company profits &amp; means they 're also cheap to dump when they start getting too greedy.This in turn implies that due to a lack of musical ability , they 're incapable of producing music albums that have more than one or two good tracks on them , thus explaining why the modern " great unwashed " now want to treat music like " Pick N Mix " sweeties and just choose the tracks they like ( which also happen to be the only ones that are any good ) .So speaking as the complete and utter music snob that I am , let me sit here and do nothing else but enjoy my nice hi-fidelity , old-fashioned Pink Floyd music CDs from start to finish on my nice expensive hi-fi system whilst you children go off &amp; run around at the gym whilst listening to your " ever so modern " formulaic plastic music...Rant mode disengaged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if you're stupid enough to part with good money just for the pleasure of having your hard disk heads move in such a way so as to create some crappy, lossy music files on your PC, then you're probably too stupid to appreciate their music...Sorry, kiddies, but you need to face some facts - the vast majority of modern music is about elevating talentless people into the limelight as quickly as possible so they're too shell-shocked to demand too much in royalties; this maximises record company profits &amp; means they're also cheap to dump when they start getting too greedy.This in turn implies that due to a lack of musical ability, they're incapable of producing music albums that have more than one or two good tracks on them, thus explaining why the modern "great unwashed" now want to treat music like "Pick N Mix" sweeties and just choose the tracks they like (which also happen to be the only ones that are any good).So speaking as the complete and utter music snob that I am, let me sit here and do nothing else but enjoy my nice hi-fidelity, old-fashioned Pink Floyd music CDs from start to finish on my nice expensive hi-fi system whilst you children go off &amp; run around at the gym whilst listening to your "ever so modern" formulaic plastic music...Rant mode disengaged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445306</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268305860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds good to me.</p><p>I can now pirate anything i want because copyrights only apply to physical items.</p><p>Heck when copyrights were defined the internet and digital distributions didnt even exist yet.  So how can copyrights possibily apply to a buncha 1's and 0's?</p><p>I win.  Yay me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds good to me.I can now pirate anything i want because copyrights only apply to physical items.Heck when copyrights were defined the internet and digital distributions didnt even exist yet .
So how can copyrights possibily apply to a buncha 1 's and 0 's ? I win .
Yay me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds good to me.I can now pirate anything i want because copyrights only apply to physical items.Heck when copyrights were defined the internet and digital distributions didnt even exist yet.
So how can copyrights possibily apply to a buncha 1's and 0's?I win.
Yay me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444662</id>
	<title>Re:Song flow</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1268303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But c'mon, what balls on EMI. Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records. But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.</p></div></blockquote><p>

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an honest oversight on EMI's part to begin with.  But when PF came to challenge what they were doing EMI tried to cover their ass.  PF has been around for awhile, chances are the contract is pretty old.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But c'mon , what balls on EMI .
Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact , EMI tried to weasel out by saying they were n't selling records .
But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme , so I should n't be surprised .
To be honest , I would n't be surprised if it was an honest oversight on EMI 's part to begin with .
But when PF came to challenge what they were doing EMI tried to cover their ass .
PF has been around for awhile , chances are the contract is pretty old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But c'mon, what balls on EMI.
Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records.
But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an honest oversight on EMI's part to begin with.
But when PF came to challenge what they were doing EMI tried to cover their ass.
PF has been around for awhile, chances are the contract is pretty old.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445054</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268304720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Audacity or Cool Edit to splice the tracks together, then save it as one big track for my mp3 player.</p><p>There are MANY rock classics that are just meant to be played back to back in a 2 or 3 song set.</p><p>In addition to the tracks you listed, there are others by Journey, Steve Miller, Queen, Alan Parsons Project, ELO... the list goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Audacity or Cool Edit to splice the tracks together , then save it as one big track for my mp3 player.There are MANY rock classics that are just meant to be played back to back in a 2 or 3 song set.In addition to the tracks you listed , there are others by Journey , Steve Miller , Queen , Alan Parsons Project , ELO... the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Audacity or Cool Edit to splice the tracks together, then save it as one big track for my mp3 player.There are MANY rock classics that are just meant to be played back to back in a 2 or 3 song set.In addition to the tracks you listed, there are others by Journey, Steve Miller, Queen, Alan Parsons Project, ELO... the list goes on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442560</id>
	<title>Merciless, the magistrate...</title>
	<author>synaptik</author>
	<datestamp>1268340300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Merciless, the magistrate turns 'round [to EMI,] frowning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Merciless , the magistrate turns 'round [ to EMI , ] frowning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Merciless, the magistrate turns 'round [to EMI,] frowning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445248</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268305560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could be that there is a distinction between mindless bundling with filler and actual artistic integrity. It could also be a respect for contracts freely entered by two parties with a reasonably equal negotiation position compared to copyright laws imposed from on high. Perhaps it's just that everyone likes to see the playground bully get his ass kicked once in a while even if there is some collateral damage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could be that there is a distinction between mindless bundling with filler and actual artistic integrity .
It could also be a respect for contracts freely entered by two parties with a reasonably equal negotiation position compared to copyright laws imposed from on high .
Perhaps it 's just that everyone likes to see the playground bully get his ass kicked once in a while even if there is some collateral damage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could be that there is a distinction between mindless bundling with filler and actual artistic integrity.
It could also be a respect for contracts freely entered by two parties with a reasonably equal negotiation position compared to copyright laws imposed from on high.
Perhaps it's just that everyone likes to see the playground bully get his ass kicked once in a while even if there is some collateral damage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447086</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, don't unbundle that subject line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , do n't unbundle that subject line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, don't unbundle that subject line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447166</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268314680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>huh, its because of Cds with their tracks (the ability to jump between songs with a push of the button instead of manually finding where the song started which you had to do with tapes and records) and radio with the emphasis on shorter songs so that more songs could be fit in between commercial breaks that shorter songs started to become popular.  This also is what lead to albums becoming 1 to 2 good songs with a bunch of crap thrown in there so they could sell an album instead of some singles instead of being a compilation of good songs that flowed together.</p><p>While iTunes and other music d/l services did further hurt the album model, it is not what started the hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>huh , its because of Cds with their tracks ( the ability to jump between songs with a push of the button instead of manually finding where the song started which you had to do with tapes and records ) and radio with the emphasis on shorter songs so that more songs could be fit in between commercial breaks that shorter songs started to become popular .
This also is what lead to albums becoming 1 to 2 good songs with a bunch of crap thrown in there so they could sell an album instead of some singles instead of being a compilation of good songs that flowed together.While iTunes and other music d/l services did further hurt the album model , it is not what started the hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>huh, its because of Cds with their tracks (the ability to jump between songs with a push of the button instead of manually finding where the song started which you had to do with tapes and records) and radio with the emphasis on shorter songs so that more songs could be fit in between commercial breaks that shorter songs started to become popular.
This also is what lead to albums becoming 1 to 2 good songs with a bunch of crap thrown in there so they could sell an album instead of some singles instead of being a compilation of good songs that flowed together.While iTunes and other music d/l services did further hurt the album model, it is not what started the hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447912</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>idlemachine</author>
	<datestamp>1268320560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.</i></p><p>I once asked on the Apple forums if the then 3rd-gen iPod would ever support gapless playback. I listen to a <i>lot</i> of mixes &amp; concept albums and having a single 2 hour mp3 burned through the batteries, the official recommendation at that time was to have no track larger than ~9MB. After much flaming from the peanut gallery, I was eventually told by one of the engineers that there was clearly something wrong with my attention span if I couldn't handle a small silence between tracks. It was pretty clear from the comments that the majority were listening to pop and/or rock, so the idea of music going for more than 5-6 mins just didn't seem to have been considered.</p><p>Needless to say, it was the last Apple device I ever bought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Young music marketers do n't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.I once asked on the Apple forums if the then 3rd-gen iPod would ever support gapless playback .
I listen to a lot of mixes &amp; concept albums and having a single 2 hour mp3 burned through the batteries , the official recommendation at that time was to have no track larger than ~ 9MB .
After much flaming from the peanut gallery , I was eventually told by one of the engineers that there was clearly something wrong with my attention span if I could n't handle a small silence between tracks .
It was pretty clear from the comments that the majority were listening to pop and/or rock , so the idea of music going for more than 5-6 mins just did n't seem to have been considered.Needless to say , it was the last Apple device I ever bought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.I once asked on the Apple forums if the then 3rd-gen iPod would ever support gapless playback.
I listen to a lot of mixes &amp; concept albums and having a single 2 hour mp3 burned through the batteries, the official recommendation at that time was to have no track larger than ~9MB.
After much flaming from the peanut gallery, I was eventually told by one of the engineers that there was clearly something wrong with my attention span if I couldn't handle a small silence between tracks.
It was pretty clear from the comments that the majority were listening to pop and/or rock, so the idea of music going for more than 5-6 mins just didn't seem to have been considered.Needless to say, it was the last Apple device I ever bought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1268340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?</p><p>If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them.  But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.</p><p>As I said, I doubt they care, but it's interesting to me.</p></div><p>Well, the result included an undisclosed settlement of royalties paid to Pink Floyd by EMI based on past sales.  So it could be as serious as the difference album versus fractional purchase of everyone who bought only fractions of Pink Floyd albums.  <br> <br>

If it's in the contract, it's in the contract.  I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.'  I understand that the Pt. 1, Pt. 2, Pt. 3, etc of songs like "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" but there are stand alone tracks on Floyd albums.  I guess it was in the contract and EMI agreed to it.  I think it's usually the artist getting bit by contractual agreements so I'm sure EMI is due.  <br> <br>

I must question how long Pink Floyd allowed this to go on before seeking reparations from EMI<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... seems to me iTunes has been offering Floyd for a long time.  Greed on Pink Floyd's part?  Or just a genuine slow realization that people weren't getting the full effect of their art?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember , how much money does a band get per ( legally ) downloaded audio track ? If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way , and EMI agreed to it , good for them .
But at the same time , ( assuming they care , they may not ) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.As I said , I doubt they care , but it 's interesting to me.Well , the result included an undisclosed settlement of royalties paid to Pink Floyd by EMI based on past sales .
So it could be as serious as the difference album versus fractional purchase of everyone who bought only fractions of Pink Floyd albums .
If it 's in the contract , it 's in the contract .
I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless .
' I understand that the Pt .
1 , Pt .
2 , Pt .
3 , etc of songs like " Shine on You Crazy Diamond " but there are stand alone tracks on Floyd albums .
I guess it was in the contract and EMI agreed to it .
I think it 's usually the artist getting bit by contractual agreements so I 'm sure EMI is due .
I must question how long Pink Floyd allowed this to go on before seeking reparations from EMI ... seems to me iTunes has been offering Floyd for a long time .
Greed on Pink Floyd 's part ?
Or just a genuine slow realization that people were n't getting the full effect of their art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them.
But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.As I said, I doubt they care, but it's interesting to me.Well, the result included an undisclosed settlement of royalties paid to Pink Floyd by EMI based on past sales.
So it could be as serious as the difference album versus fractional purchase of everyone who bought only fractions of Pink Floyd albums.
If it's in the contract, it's in the contract.
I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.
'  I understand that the Pt.
1, Pt.
2, Pt.
3, etc of songs like "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" but there are stand alone tracks on Floyd albums.
I guess it was in the contract and EMI agreed to it.
I think it's usually the artist getting bit by contractual agreements so I'm sure EMI is due.
I must question how long Pink Floyd allowed this to go on before seeking reparations from EMI ... seems to me iTunes has been offering Floyd for a long time.
Greed on Pink Floyd's part?
Or just a genuine slow realization that people weren't getting the full effect of their art?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447176</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268314800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track.</p></div><p>This is just a guess, but perhaps the relevant provision in the contract was written in because the labels weren't willing to release the music as a single track?</p><p>The interesting byline in this story is how the record labels (who are unsurprisingly pulling their disingenuous 'what about the artists?' rug out from under their own feet) are taking a bullet in the foot for their own copyright extension lobbying. PF have never lobbied for the extension of copyright law.</p><p>In this case it looks like PF have picked up EMI's rubber mallet and whacked them over the back of the head with it. It's doubtful that PF's motivation is Slashdot'esque, but any<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er would gladly wield the same mallet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole , then make it one track.This is just a guess , but perhaps the relevant provision in the contract was written in because the labels were n't willing to release the music as a single track ? The interesting byline in this story is how the record labels ( who are unsurprisingly pulling their disingenuous 'what about the artists ?
' rug out from under their own feet ) are taking a bullet in the foot for their own copyright extension lobbying .
PF have never lobbied for the extension of copyright law.In this case it looks like PF have picked up EMI 's rubber mallet and whacked them over the back of the head with it .
It 's doubtful that PF 's motivation is Slashdot'esque , but any /.er would gladly wield the same mallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track.This is just a guess, but perhaps the relevant provision in the contract was written in because the labels weren't willing to release the music as a single track?The interesting byline in this story is how the record labels (who are unsurprisingly pulling their disingenuous 'what about the artists?
' rug out from under their own feet) are taking a bullet in the foot for their own copyright extension lobbying.
PF have never lobbied for the extension of copyright law.In this case it looks like PF have picked up EMI's rubber mallet and whacked them over the back of the head with it.
It's doubtful that PF's motivation is Slashdot'esque, but any /.er would gladly wield the same mallet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450778</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268404380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  It's nice to see a band still valuing their music, even though they will likely incur a personal financial hit.  So was Money written about record companies or what?</p><p>Oh, and add Operation: Mindcrime from Queensryche to the list of albums that suffer from ipod shuffle interruptus.</p><p>Time to pop in my Dark Side disk so I can hear it once again as the artists intended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It 's nice to see a band still valuing their music , even though they will likely incur a personal financial hit .
So was Money written about record companies or what ? Oh , and add Operation : Mindcrime from Queensryche to the list of albums that suffer from ipod shuffle interruptus.Time to pop in my Dark Side disk so I can hear it once again as the artists intended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It's nice to see a band still valuing their music, even though they will likely incur a personal financial hit.
So was Money written about record companies or what?Oh, and add Operation: Mindcrime from Queensryche to the list of albums that suffer from ipod shuffle interruptus.Time to pop in my Dark Side disk so I can hear it once again as the artists intended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31461334</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1268413800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So rather than say 'yay, Pink Floyd won!', we should be saying 'what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?'"</p><p>I have no doubt they fuck smaller bands in the ass on a daily basis. The only thing I'm surprised about here is that they thought they could do it to a band as huge as Floyd without seeing legal action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So rather than say 'yay , Pink Floyd won !
' , we should be saying 'what the fuck did EMI think they were doing ?
' " I have no doubt they fuck smaller bands in the ass on a daily basis .
The only thing I 'm surprised about here is that they thought they could do it to a band as huge as Floyd without seeing legal action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So rather than say 'yay, Pink Floyd won!
', we should be saying 'what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?
'"I have no doubt they fuck smaller bands in the ass on a daily basis.
The only thing I'm surprised about here is that they thought they could do it to a band as huge as Floyd without seeing legal action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443394</id>
	<title>Ahh, tables have turned</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1268299380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel like this is an argument of which the labels were fighting. And now they are using it as an excuse. Contract law my friend, if it states the album cannot be partially distributed, tough shit EMI, it can't be distributed in pieces. I dont care if it is physical means or digital download, it is still being distributed, and being distributed in violation of contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like this is an argument of which the labels were fighting .
And now they are using it as an excuse .
Contract law my friend , if it states the album can not be partially distributed , tough shit EMI , it ca n't be distributed in pieces .
I dont care if it is physical means or digital download , it is still being distributed , and being distributed in violation of contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like this is an argument of which the labels were fighting.
And now they are using it as an excuse.
Contract law my friend, if it states the album cannot be partially distributed, tough shit EMI, it can't be distributed in pieces.
I dont care if it is physical means or digital download, it is still being distributed, and being distributed in violation of contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448332</id>
	<title>Re:I Agree With The Mighty Floyd...</title>
	<author>chewthreetimes</author>
	<datestamp>1268324760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like a true dinosaur.</p><p>If the only modern music you've been exposed to is Top 40, then I guess I understand your POV, but trust me old timer, there's a lot of good music still being made.</p><p>I guess the difference between now and back in the day is that the cream tended to make it into the mainstream back then. Now the mainstream is mainly determined by marketing budgets, so you have to do a bit of work to find the good stuff, but it's out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like a true dinosaur.If the only modern music you 've been exposed to is Top 40 , then I guess I understand your POV , but trust me old timer , there 's a lot of good music still being made.I guess the difference between now and back in the day is that the cream tended to make it into the mainstream back then .
Now the mainstream is mainly determined by marketing budgets , so you have to do a bit of work to find the good stuff , but it 's out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like a true dinosaur.If the only modern music you've been exposed to is Top 40, then I guess I understand your POV, but trust me old timer, there's a lot of good music still being made.I guess the difference between now and back in the day is that the cream tended to make it into the mainstream back then.
Now the mainstream is mainly determined by marketing budgets, so you have to do a bit of work to find the good stuff, but it's out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</id>
	<title>People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>RapmasterT</author>
	<datestamp>1268301360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't an issue of profit versus art, or even single track versus album, the issue here is that EMI had a god damned contract with the artist that specifically said NOT to do something...which they then did.  And then excused it with the thin excuse that "it didn't count" because it only applied to physical albums...which then by their own argument meant they had NO contract rights to electronic distribution.
<br> <br>
Any ruling OTHER than overwhelmingly in favor of Pink Floyd would have set a precedent that would basically invalidate all artists rights and let the studios run roughshod over everyone.
<br> <br>
So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't an issue of profit versus art , or even single track versus album , the issue here is that EMI had a god damned contract with the artist that specifically said NOT to do something...which they then did .
And then excused it with the thin excuse that " it did n't count " because it only applied to physical albums...which then by their own argument meant they had NO contract rights to electronic distribution .
Any ruling OTHER than overwhelmingly in favor of Pink Floyd would have set a precedent that would basically invalidate all artists rights and let the studios run roughshod over everyone .
So rather than say " yay , Pink Floyd won !
" , we should be saying " what the fuck did EMI think they were doing ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't an issue of profit versus art, or even single track versus album, the issue here is that EMI had a god damned contract with the artist that specifically said NOT to do something...which they then did.
And then excused it with the thin excuse that "it didn't count" because it only applied to physical albums...which then by their own argument meant they had NO contract rights to electronic distribution.
Any ruling OTHER than overwhelmingly in favor of Pink Floyd would have set a precedent that would basically invalidate all artists rights and let the studios run roughshod over everyone.
So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!
", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445956</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>lewiscr</author>
	<datestamp>1268308560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love being able to buy individual tracks.  I ripped all my CDs, and some of the oldest CDs are scratched to hell.  CDParanoia did a better job than I had any right to expect, but some of the tracks are still unbearable.  I'm willing to pay a $1 "stupid tax" for not taking care of my CDs, but I'm not going to purchase the whole album again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love being able to buy individual tracks .
I ripped all my CDs , and some of the oldest CDs are scratched to hell .
CDParanoia did a better job than I had any right to expect , but some of the tracks are still unbearable .
I 'm willing to pay a $ 1 " stupid tax " for not taking care of my CDs , but I 'm not going to purchase the whole album again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love being able to buy individual tracks.
I ripped all my CDs, and some of the oldest CDs are scratched to hell.
CDParanoia did a better job than I had any right to expect, but some of the tracks are still unbearable.
I'm willing to pay a $1 "stupid tax" for not taking care of my CDs, but I'm not going to purchase the whole album again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442546</id>
	<title>This isn't about bundling...</title>
	<author>Delusion\_</author>
	<datestamp>1268340240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this is about a record label subverting a contract.  EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and doesn't want to jeopardize that.  EMI is probably right, Pink Floyd possibly so.  The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI's failure to live up to its contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is about a record label subverting a contract .
EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks , Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and does n't want to jeopardize that .
EMI is probably right , Pink Floyd possibly so .
The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI 's failure to live up to its contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is about a record label subverting a contract.
EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and doesn't want to jeopardize that.
EMI is probably right, Pink Floyd possibly so.
The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI's failure to live up to its contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444220</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268301780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...</i> </p><p>They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking <i>brutal</i>.  One level is Dark Side of the Moon.  The next is The Wall.  Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!</p></div><p>If they can do it on stage, surely you can do it in your living room.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero... They can still make em , they 're just going to be fucking brutal .
One level is Dark Side of the Moon .
The next is The Wall .
Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes , fucker ! If they can do it on stage , surely you can do it in your living room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero... They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking brutal.
One level is Dark Side of the Moon.
The next is The Wall.
Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!If they can do it on stage, surely you can do it in your living room.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1268341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play. I love having my iPod on shuffle, except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa's Apostrophe.  When a tune like "Brain Damage" comes on, it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to "Eclipse", as opposed to <i>Floydus Interruptus</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd take that one step further , I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy " Continue on to next track " feature for random play .
I love having my iPod on shuffle , except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa 's Apostrophe .
When a tune like " Brain Damage " comes on , it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to " Eclipse " , as opposed to Floydus Interruptus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play.
I love having my iPod on shuffle, except when playing things that segue like Dark Side of The Moon or Abbey Road or Frank Zappa's Apostrophe.
When a tune like "Brain Damage" comes on, it would be nice to have an one-push feature that will continue to "Eclipse", as opposed to Floydus Interruptus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</id>
	<title>Radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny because radio destroys this "artistic integrity" by playing Pink Floyd singles every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny because radio destroys this " artistic integrity " by playing Pink Floyd singles every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny because radio destroys this "artistic integrity" by playing Pink Floyd singles every day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446482</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268310900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The decline of albums happened long before iTunes.  Back in the days of the cassette tape, there were singles.  Then the CD single came along.  The really technology to blame was MTV.
</p><p>
Frontline covered this topic in 2004 in an episode called <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/" title="pbs.org">The way the music died.</a> [pbs.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>"What it did really is make the business a one trick pony -- and everything became about the three minutes, the single, the hit single," entertainment attorney Michael Guido tells FRONTLINE. "I think the album died with MTV. The culture in the record companies in the last 20 years has been to reward artists for three minutes of music, not for 40 minutes of music."</p></div></blockquote><p>The music industry because obsessed with promoting the single only.  Albums then became about getting one or two hit singles packaged with a dozen other songs.  The music industry shifted focus to selling a song rather than selling the artist.</p><p>iTunes was only about selling what the Apple thought their customers wanted.  There wasn't a very easy way to get music online at all whether a consumer wanted a single or an entire album.  If Apple could provide this store/service they would have an advantage over other players.  I'd say Apple was correct in that assumption.  They didn't drive this demise; they merely used it to their advantage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The decline of albums happened long before iTunes .
Back in the days of the cassette tape , there were singles .
Then the CD single came along .
The really technology to blame was MTV .
Frontline covered this topic in 2004 in an episode called The way the music died .
[ pbs.org ] " What it did really is make the business a one trick pony -- and everything became about the three minutes , the single , the hit single , " entertainment attorney Michael Guido tells FRONTLINE .
" I think the album died with MTV .
The culture in the record companies in the last 20 years has been to reward artists for three minutes of music , not for 40 minutes of music .
" The music industry because obsessed with promoting the single only .
Albums then became about getting one or two hit singles packaged with a dozen other songs .
The music industry shifted focus to selling a song rather than selling the artist.iTunes was only about selling what the Apple thought their customers wanted .
There was n't a very easy way to get music online at all whether a consumer wanted a single or an entire album .
If Apple could provide this store/service they would have an advantage over other players .
I 'd say Apple was correct in that assumption .
They did n't drive this demise ; they merely used it to their advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decline of albums happened long before iTunes.
Back in the days of the cassette tape, there were singles.
Then the CD single came along.
The really technology to blame was MTV.
Frontline covered this topic in 2004 in an episode called The way the music died.
[pbs.org] "What it did really is make the business a one trick pony -- and everything became about the three minutes, the single, the hit single," entertainment attorney Michael Guido tells FRONTLINE.
"I think the album died with MTV.
The culture in the record companies in the last 20 years has been to reward artists for three minutes of music, not for 40 minutes of music.
"The music industry because obsessed with promoting the single only.
Albums then became about getting one or two hit singles packaged with a dozen other songs.
The music industry shifted focus to selling a song rather than selling the artist.iTunes was only about selling what the Apple thought their customers wanted.
There wasn't a very easy way to get music online at all whether a consumer wanted a single or an entire album.
If Apple could provide this store/service they would have an advantage over other players.
I'd say Apple was correct in that assumption.
They didn't drive this demise; they merely used it to their advantage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442786</id>
	<title>Props to Pink Floyd...</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1268340900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...for sticking to their guns. Artistic integrity isn't generally a concern of popular musicians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for sticking to their guns .
Artistic integrity is n't generally a concern of popular musicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for sticking to their guns.
Artistic integrity isn't generally a concern of popular musicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442888</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Another, completely</author>
	<datestamp>1268341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or they approached EMI first, then eventually went to court, then it was there for a couple of years, and now it's done.  The article doesn't mention when they first complained.  They say the contract is from a decade ago, which sounds about a quarter-century short of Dark Side, and certainly post-Waters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they approached EMI first , then eventually went to court , then it was there for a couple of years , and now it 's done .
The article does n't mention when they first complained .
They say the contract is from a decade ago , which sounds about a quarter-century short of Dark Side , and certainly post-Waters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they approached EMI first, then eventually went to court, then it was there for a couple of years, and now it's done.
The article doesn't mention when they first complained.
They say the contract is from a decade ago, which sounds about a quarter-century short of Dark Side, and certainly post-Waters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1268340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...</i></p><p>They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking <i>brutal</i>.  One level is Dark Side of the Moon.  The next is The Wall.  Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...They can still make em , they 're just going to be fucking brutal .
One level is Dark Side of the Moon .
The next is The Wall .
Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes , fucker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There goes any hopes for Pink Floyd on Rock Band or Guitar Hero...They can still make em, they're just going to be fucking brutal.
One level is Dark Side of the Moon.
The next is The Wall.
Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443788</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1268300520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think most slashdotters would be cranky if PF was trying to make it so the end user wasn't able to split the album up for private mixed tapes and whatnot after it had been purchased.  In this case, PF is just trying to sell a product they created under terms to PFs liking.  The end user can then buy or not buy it according to his/her whim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most slashdotters would be cranky if PF was trying to make it so the end user was n't able to split the album up for private mixed tapes and whatnot after it had been purchased .
In this case , PF is just trying to sell a product they created under terms to PFs liking .
The end user can then buy or not buy it according to his/her whim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most slashdotters would be cranky if PF was trying to make it so the end user wasn't able to split the album up for private mixed tapes and whatnot after it had been purchased.
In this case, PF is just trying to sell a product they created under terms to PFs liking.
The end user can then buy or not buy it according to his/her whim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.  I hear "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II" almost daily, and frequently hear "Money", "Learning to Fly", "Wish You Were Here" and "Comfortably Numb".  I'm no Floyd fan, but I like some of those tunes enough that I'd buy them individually, and screw anyone who says I shouldn't be able to because of "artistic integrity".</p><p>I submit that telling me how to appreciate a piece of art negates its status as art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio .
I hear " Another Brick in the Wall , Part II " almost daily , and frequently hear " Money " , " Learning to Fly " , " Wish You Were Here " and " Comfortably Numb " .
I 'm no Floyd fan , but I like some of those tunes enough that I 'd buy them individually , and screw anyone who says I should n't be able to because of " artistic integrity " .I submit that telling me how to appreciate a piece of art negates its status as art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.
I hear "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II" almost daily, and frequently hear "Money", "Learning to Fly", "Wish You Were Here" and "Comfortably Numb".
I'm no Floyd fan, but I like some of those tunes enough that I'd buy them individually, and screw anyone who says I shouldn't be able to because of "artistic integrity".I submit that telling me how to appreciate a piece of art negates its status as art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444254</id>
	<title>When will this change anything?</title>
	<author>sugapablo</author>
	<datestamp>1268301900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Currently, iTunes is still selling the individual tracks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , iTunes is still selling the individual tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently, iTunes is still selling the individual tracks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442712</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's still the option of a game of their own, a la The Beatles: Rock Band. And they could allow the albums to be played only as one piece.</p><p>Then again, if the music is licensed for the game, that might make it a brand new contract and allow them to work around this.</p><p>For what it's worth, there are only a handful of Floyd songs that I enjoy solo, most are best as a package. Even those I enjoy on their own, like Brain Damage/Eclipse, are much more powerful in the full album.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's still the option of a game of their own , a la The Beatles : Rock Band .
And they could allow the albums to be played only as one piece.Then again , if the music is licensed for the game , that might make it a brand new contract and allow them to work around this.For what it 's worth , there are only a handful of Floyd songs that I enjoy solo , most are best as a package .
Even those I enjoy on their own , like Brain Damage/Eclipse , are much more powerful in the full album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's still the option of a game of their own, a la The Beatles: Rock Band.
And they could allow the albums to be played only as one piece.Then again, if the music is licensed for the game, that might make it a brand new contract and allow them to work around this.For what it's worth, there are only a handful of Floyd songs that I enjoy solo, most are best as a package.
Even those I enjoy on their own, like Brain Damage/Eclipse, are much more powerful in the full album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448304</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268324520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why'd they release a greatest hits album?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why 'd they release a greatest hits album ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why'd they release a greatest hits album?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485408</id>
	<title>Musicians need to get over themselves</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268682180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Musicians need to get over themselves. You don't exist without people buying your music (or if you do, you exist like I do, playing 2 or 3 times a month for fun/free beer). If people want to buy a song without buying the rest of the songs, then so be it. If they can't buy just the one or three they want, then the just won't buy any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Musicians need to get over themselves .
You do n't exist without people buying your music ( or if you do , you exist like I do , playing 2 or 3 times a month for fun/free beer ) .
If people want to buy a song without buying the rest of the songs , then so be it .
If they ca n't buy just the one or three they want , then the just wo n't buy any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Musicians need to get over themselves.
You don't exist without people buying your music (or if you do, you exist like I do, playing 2 or 3 times a month for fun/free beer).
If people want to buy a song without buying the rest of the songs, then so be it.
If they can't buy just the one or three they want, then the just won't buy any.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443352</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>tbannist</author>
	<datestamp>1268299260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's actually a pretty good suggestion for a feature.  It'd be cool to even just be able to do an "album shuffle" mode where all the songs on an album are played in order before randomly selecting the next album.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's actually a pretty good suggestion for a feature .
It 'd be cool to even just be able to do an " album shuffle " mode where all the songs on an album are played in order before randomly selecting the next album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's actually a pretty good suggestion for a feature.
It'd be cool to even just be able to do an "album shuffle" mode where all the songs on an album are played in order before randomly selecting the next album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443558</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot. His comment doesn't have anything to do with the contract itself. It has to do with the band's reasoning for the contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While you think you 've made some sort of insightful comment you 're really just an idiot .
His comment does n't have anything to do with the contract itself .
It has to do with the band 's reasoning for the contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you think you've made some sort of insightful comment you're really just an idiot.
His comment doesn't have anything to do with the contract itself.
It has to do with the band's reasoning for the contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444686</id>
	<title>I'll listen to it the way I want to</title>
	<author>sjbe</author>
	<datestamp>1268303400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.</p></div><p>Says them.  I am a fan of Pink Floyd's music but I can't remember the last time I listened to one of their albums end to end. Just because they claim it is a single piece of music doesn't mean I have to agree with that assertion.  I think the fact that they don't sell it as a single track belies Pink Floyd's argument.  If it really was one piece of music, why have separate tracks?  There is no point or purpose to them.  By dividing them into separate tracks they are making a clear statement that these are separate works even if they bundle them together.</p><p>I really don't care if there is an underlying coherency to the music or not.  I don't care if the whole thing is intended to be a single work.  I don't care in the slightest about the artistic integrity of the album.  There are parts of The Wall I like and parts I'm indifferent to.  Same with their other albums.  Pink Floyd can sell their music any way they want but I don't have to buy it.  Some of their work is better than other bits.  I'm not about to fork over money for the bits I don't like.  Pink Floyd has made millions over the years and they don't need my money to pay the bills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink Floyd 's music is meant to be listened to as a whole , albums are ( the good ones ) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.Says them .
I am a fan of Pink Floyd 's music but I ca n't remember the last time I listened to one of their albums end to end .
Just because they claim it is a single piece of music does n't mean I have to agree with that assertion .
I think the fact that they do n't sell it as a single track belies Pink Floyd 's argument .
If it really was one piece of music , why have separate tracks ?
There is no point or purpose to them .
By dividing them into separate tracks they are making a clear statement that these are separate works even if they bundle them together.I really do n't care if there is an underlying coherency to the music or not .
I do n't care if the whole thing is intended to be a single work .
I do n't care in the slightest about the artistic integrity of the album .
There are parts of The Wall I like and parts I 'm indifferent to .
Same with their other albums .
Pink Floyd can sell their music any way they want but I do n't have to buy it .
Some of their work is better than other bits .
I 'm not about to fork over money for the bits I do n't like .
Pink Floyd has made millions over the years and they do n't need my money to pay the bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.Says them.
I am a fan of Pink Floyd's music but I can't remember the last time I listened to one of their albums end to end.
Just because they claim it is a single piece of music doesn't mean I have to agree with that assertion.
I think the fact that they don't sell it as a single track belies Pink Floyd's argument.
If it really was one piece of music, why have separate tracks?
There is no point or purpose to them.
By dividing them into separate tracks they are making a clear statement that these are separate works even if they bundle them together.I really don't care if there is an underlying coherency to the music or not.
I don't care if the whole thing is intended to be a single work.
I don't care in the slightest about the artistic integrity of the album.
There are parts of The Wall I like and parts I'm indifferent to.
Same with their other albums.
Pink Floyd can sell their music any way they want but I don't have to buy it.
Some of their work is better than other bits.
I'm not about to fork over money for the bits I don't like.
Pink Floyd has made millions over the years and they don't need my money to pay the bills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444064</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268301360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noticed that with the few power metal albums I have by Kamelot.  I normally would listen to my mp3s on shuffle, but when I bought (and then ripped) these, I cannot. It just doesn't sound right at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed that with the few power metal albums I have by Kamelot .
I normally would listen to my mp3s on shuffle , but when I bought ( and then ripped ) these , I can not .
It just does n't sound right at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed that with the few power metal albums I have by Kamelot.
I normally would listen to my mp3s on shuffle, but when I bought (and then ripped) these, I cannot.
It just doesn't sound right at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446112</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>businessnerd</author>
	<datestamp>1268309040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically, the radio stations rarely play a "single" from Pink Floyd (and no not because they were never released as singles).  Radio stations usually play 2 or 3 subsequent tracks of an album at a time.  While some single tracks can lend themselves to being played on their own, most actually use either the preceding track as a lead-in or the track immediately after to close it out properly.  Examples include merging "Brain Damage" with "Eclipse" and "Speak to Me" with "Breathe" on the "Dark Side of the Moon" album and merging "Empty Spaces" with "Young Lust" on "The Wall" album.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , the radio stations rarely play a " single " from Pink Floyd ( and no not because they were never released as singles ) .
Radio stations usually play 2 or 3 subsequent tracks of an album at a time .
While some single tracks can lend themselves to being played on their own , most actually use either the preceding track as a lead-in or the track immediately after to close it out properly .
Examples include merging " Brain Damage " with " Eclipse " and " Speak to Me " with " Breathe " on the " Dark Side of the Moon " album and merging " Empty Spaces " with " Young Lust " on " The Wall " album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, the radio stations rarely play a "single" from Pink Floyd (and no not because they were never released as singles).
Radio stations usually play 2 or 3 subsequent tracks of an album at a time.
While some single tracks can lend themselves to being played on their own, most actually use either the preceding track as a lead-in or the track immediately after to close it out properly.
Examples include merging "Brain Damage" with "Eclipse" and "Speak to Me" with "Breathe" on the "Dark Side of the Moon" album and merging "Empty Spaces" with "Young Lust" on "The Wall" album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445008</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1268304540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should try a complete album. Listen at night in the dark with good headphones. Then you'll see why they want it sold that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should try a complete album .
Listen at night in the dark with good headphones .
Then you 'll see why they want it sold that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should try a complete album.
Listen at night in the dark with good headphones.
Then you'll see why they want it sold that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443200</id>
	<title>PF Will...</title>
	<author>MrTripps</author>
	<datestamp>1268298900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pink Floyd will let their albums be unbundled when pigs fly. Oh wait...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/P1000184.JPG</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink Floyd will let their albums be unbundled when pigs fly .
Oh wait...http : //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/P1000184.JPG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink Floyd will let their albums be unbundled when pigs fly.
Oh wait...http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/P1000184.JPG</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</id>
	<title>Different music concept</title>
	<author>boristdog</author>
	<datestamp>1268299320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since the advent of the long-playing record as the popular music medium, many artists have been making music that flows for 20 to 45 minutes, not just music that lasts for 3 or 4 minutes.  Sure, singles still got made, but most real artists thought in terms of albums, not songs.  The CD reinforced that model, allowing artists to flow their music for even longer.  Even on albums that appear to be mostly singles, a lot of thought went into how they were arranged on the record.</p><p>The advent of itunes killed this.  And it's a shame.  Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.  Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt. Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?</p><p>Floyd has their money, they want to keep their integrity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since the advent of the long-playing record as the popular music medium , many artists have been making music that flows for 20 to 45 minutes , not just music that lasts for 3 or 4 minutes .
Sure , singles still got made , but most real artists thought in terms of albums , not songs .
The CD reinforced that model , allowing artists to flow their music for even longer .
Even on albums that appear to be mostly singles , a lot of thought went into how they were arranged on the record.The advent of itunes killed this .
And it 's a shame .
Young music marketers do n't even think beyond 5 minutes of music .
Would Thick as a Brick , Tommy , Sgt .
Pepper , The Who Sell Out , Brain Salad Surgery , 2112 , Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new " single " only model ? Floyd has their money , they want to keep their integrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since the advent of the long-playing record as the popular music medium, many artists have been making music that flows for 20 to 45 minutes, not just music that lasts for 3 or 4 minutes.
Sure, singles still got made, but most real artists thought in terms of albums, not songs.
The CD reinforced that model, allowing artists to flow their music for even longer.
Even on albums that appear to be mostly singles, a lot of thought went into how they were arranged on the record.The advent of itunes killed this.
And it's a shame.
Young music marketers don't even think beyond 5 minutes of music.
Would Thick as a Brick, Tommy, Sgt.
Pepper, The Who Sell Out, Brain Salad Surgery, 2112, Ziggy Stardust or any of the Pink Floyd or any number of classic albums even be able to be made in this new "single" only model?Floyd has their money, they want to keep their integrity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448290</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1268324280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?</p></div><p>Authors don't usually release "Best of..." albums and tours (like Pink Floyd's "Pulse") in with the best chapters from all their books are gathered together in a different order.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books , if they never intend on having chapters published individually ? Authors do n't usually release " Best of... " albums and tours ( like Pink Floyd 's " Pulse " ) in with the best chapters from all their books are gathered together in a different order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?Authors don't usually release "Best of..." albums and tours (like Pink Floyd's "Pulse") in with the best chapters from all their books are gathered together in a different order.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1268299860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them don't view this is a contradiction at all.  That is: PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover, EMI supported that as well, in the contract they signed.   Beyond that: information has no desires and can't want to be free, but artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them do n't view this is a contradiction at all .
That is : PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover , EMI supported that as well , in the contract they signed .
Beyond that : information has no desires and ca n't want to be free , but artists ( and even labels ) are within their rights to want to get paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately Slashdot consists of many minds and some of them don't view this is a contradiction at all.
That is: PF has the right to control distribution however it wants to -- moreover, EMI supported that as well, in the contract they signed.
Beyond that: information has no desires and can't want to be free, but artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443988</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1268301120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track. Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc.</p></div><p>On a record album, it was one track.  The printing on the label had no fixed correlation to the music in the grooves, with the one exception of the point where you flip the thing over.</p><p>I wouldn't be surprised if EMI's contract allowed them to sell Money (as a single, because it was authorized as a single back then), or Dark Side of the Moon as a whole, or Dark Side of the Moon divided into chunks for side A and B <i>where applicable</i>.  The question would then be if chunks were applicable in digital form.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole , then make it one track .
Or make it movements , like symphonies... etc.On a record album , it was one track .
The printing on the label had no fixed correlation to the music in the grooves , with the one exception of the point where you flip the thing over.I would n't be surprised if EMI 's contract allowed them to sell Money ( as a single , because it was authorized as a single back then ) , or Dark Side of the Moon as a whole , or Dark Side of the Moon divided into chunks for side A and B where applicable .
The question would then be if chunks were applicable in digital form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track.
Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc.On a record album, it was one track.
The printing on the label had no fixed correlation to the music in the grooves, with the one exception of the point where you flip the thing over.I wouldn't be surprised if EMI's contract allowed them to sell Money (as a single, because it was authorized as a single back then), or Dark Side of the Moon as a whole, or Dark Side of the Moon divided into chunks for side A and B where applicable.
The question would then be if chunks were applicable in digital form.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443896</id>
	<title>I had to deal with this recently, and...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268300820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a single song I wanted to buy from a particular CD on Itunes. They wouldn't sell the individual tracks, requiring me to purchase the full album. I solved this problem by purchasing a used copy of the CD from Amazon. I got a cheaper price, higher quality, and as a bonus, I didn't support the record company!</p><p>Word to the music industry: Sell me what i want, or I'll buy it from someone else!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a single song I wanted to buy from a particular CD on Itunes .
They would n't sell the individual tracks , requiring me to purchase the full album .
I solved this problem by purchasing a used copy of the CD from Amazon .
I got a cheaper price , higher quality , and as a bonus , I did n't support the record company ! Word to the music industry : Sell me what i want , or I 'll buy it from someone else !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a single song I wanted to buy from a particular CD on Itunes.
They wouldn't sell the individual tracks, requiring me to purchase the full album.
I solved this problem by purchasing a used copy of the CD from Amazon.
I got a cheaper price, higher quality, and as a bonus, I didn't support the record company!Word to the music industry: Sell me what i want, or I'll buy it from someone else!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443918</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1268300880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking awesome. First time I've heard a pitch for a Guitar Hero game I might buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking awesome .
First time I 've heard a pitch for a Guitar Hero game I might buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking awesome.
First time I've heard a pitch for a Guitar Hero game I might buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447004</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>xaxa</author>
	<datestamp>1268313660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.classicfm.co.uk/on-air/programmes/full-works-concert-with-john-brunning/" title="classicfm.co.uk">It can be</a> [classicfm.co.uk] (I've never listened to that station, I just know it exists), but I'll bet they make a lot more money if they have room for more adverts.</p><p>(The BBC does some long-running stuff, but can't really be compared.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music .
It can be [ classicfm.co.uk ] ( I 've never listened to that station , I just know it exists ) , but I 'll bet they make a lot more money if they have room for more adverts .
( The BBC does some long-running stuff , but ca n't really be compared .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music.
It can be [classicfm.co.uk] (I've never listened to that station, I just know it exists), but I'll bet they make a lot more money if they have room for more adverts.
(The BBC does some long-running stuff, but can't really be compared.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443064</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1268298480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Protecting their artistic integrity is evil?   Get real.   Pink Floyd isn't the only band that doesn't allow their albums to be butchered and sold like pop music happy meals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Protecting their artistic integrity is evil ?
Get real .
Pink Floyd is n't the only band that does n't allow their albums to be butchered and sold like pop music happy meals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protecting their artistic integrity is evil?
Get real.
Pink Floyd isn't the only band that doesn't allow their albums to be butchered and sold like pop music happy meals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445416</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268306280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think you understand the general slashdot position on this. Slashdot is not against copyright in general. What most people on slashdot are against is indefinitely long copyright and some things done in the name of enforcing copyright: DRM schemes that will result in the work becoming unusable if the issuing company dies, DRM schemes that invade privacy, and DRM schemes that place unnecessary restrictions on the work (to require an internet connection, or limit number of copies), to name a few.<br>
<br>
This one is different. You never heard anyone on slashdot argue that authors ought to be required to sell individual chapters of books. PF, with some justification, considers certain of their albums to be single works. EMI signed a contract saying that they'd respect this distinction. This wasn't a click-through, or something attached to a product they'd already bought, they had their lawyers read it, and then decided to ignore it to make more of a profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand the general slashdot position on this .
Slashdot is not against copyright in general .
What most people on slashdot are against is indefinitely long copyright and some things done in the name of enforcing copyright : DRM schemes that will result in the work becoming unusable if the issuing company dies , DRM schemes that invade privacy , and DRM schemes that place unnecessary restrictions on the work ( to require an internet connection , or limit number of copies ) , to name a few .
This one is different .
You never heard anyone on slashdot argue that authors ought to be required to sell individual chapters of books .
PF , with some justification , considers certain of their albums to be single works .
EMI signed a contract saying that they 'd respect this distinction .
This was n't a click-through , or something attached to a product they 'd already bought , they had their lawyers read it , and then decided to ignore it to make more of a profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand the general slashdot position on this.
Slashdot is not against copyright in general.
What most people on slashdot are against is indefinitely long copyright and some things done in the name of enforcing copyright: DRM schemes that will result in the work becoming unusable if the issuing company dies, DRM schemes that invade privacy, and DRM schemes that place unnecessary restrictions on the work (to require an internet connection, or limit number of copies), to name a few.
This one is different.
You never heard anyone on slashdot argue that authors ought to be required to sell individual chapters of books.
PF, with some justification, considers certain of their albums to be single works.
EMI signed a contract saying that they'd respect this distinction.
This wasn't a click-through, or something attached to a product they'd already bought, they had their lawyers read it, and then decided to ignore it to make more of a profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443406</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1268299380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.
<br> <br>
Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists? information wants to be free? evil copyright?) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is rather one-dimensional thinking that doesn't account for the message this sends.  This is an instance of that tight control having negative repercussions for the very people who advocate that control and continue to want more of it.  Generally the record labels push for stricter copyright because they see that as something that could only benefit them.  In that manner they are exercising the same type of short-term, one-dimensional thinking.   That's why they have not heretofore been concerned about the negative consequences to their customers and to society, because those are "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses" until it happens to them personally.
<br> <br>
Now that they are taking some of that collateral damage, they might realize that they are not completely exempt from the downsides of authoritarian copyright law.  This incident alone probably won't change much, but more examples like this might make them reconsider whether lobbying for even more restrictions is such a good idea.  Generally the people who run these corporations are egotistic, childish, and rather unevolved, as evidenced by their total lack of concern for the harm caused by increasingly unjust and exploitative laws that they try so hard to purchase.  All they want to do is "look out for number one" and maximize their own gains.  That's why arguments about the greater good of society, the purpose of copyright, and the notion of balance between the public domain and the temporary monopoly of copyright are lost upon them.  The reality that their own favorite policies might cost them money is one of the only things that could change their attitude.</p><blockquote><div><p>So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums. I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music? I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., unless you're talking about physical media. And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Personally I think calling this "evil" is an example of melodrama.  Having said that, if this is indeed "evil", then the record companies are getting some firsthand exposure to why that might be the case.  They are getting to lay in the bed that they thought they were making only for others.  This is one of the only things that might make a few monied interests seriously listen to arguments that there might be something wrong with such strict control.</p><blockquote><div><p>And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The record company is getting exactly what it wanted: strict control.  They just made the mistake of believing that only they would get to exercise such control.  The only question now is whether they will realize the nature of their mistake and how their own actions led up to it.  There's nothing contradictory about recognizing this.</p><blockquote><div><p>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track. Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc. For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement. Separately...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div></blockquote><p>
They're doing what they believe is best, just as you would do what you believe is best if you were to produce an album or other artistic work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this , because they are standing up to the evil record label .
Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels ( and/or artists ?
information wants to be free ?
evil copyright ?
) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold .
This is rather one-dimensional thinking that does n't account for the message this sends .
This is an instance of that tight control having negative repercussions for the very people who advocate that control and continue to want more of it .
Generally the record labels push for stricter copyright because they see that as something that could only benefit them .
In that manner they are exercising the same type of short-term , one-dimensional thinking .
That 's why they have not heretofore been concerned about the negative consequences to their customers and to society , because those are " collateral damage " and " acceptable losses " until it happens to them personally .
Now that they are taking some of that collateral damage , they might realize that they are not completely exempt from the downsides of authoritarian copyright law .
This incident alone probably wo n't change much , but more examples like this might make them reconsider whether lobbying for even more restrictions is such a good idea .
Generally the people who run these corporations are egotistic , childish , and rather unevolved , as evidenced by their total lack of concern for the harm caused by increasingly unjust and exploitative laws that they try so hard to purchase .
All they want to do is " look out for number one " and maximize their own gains .
That 's why arguments about the greater good of society , the purpose of copyright , and the notion of balance between the public domain and the temporary monopoly of copyright are lost upon them .
The reality that their own favorite policies might cost them money is one of the only things that could change their attitude.So here 's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we 're upset about it , because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums .
I guess that 's their artistic license... but are n't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music ?
I 've heard plenty of arguments how that should n't be allowed , it 's not fair , etc. , unless you 're talking about physical media .
And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media .. . Personally I think calling this " evil " is an example of melodrama .
Having said that , if this is indeed " evil " , then the record companies are getting some firsthand exposure to why that might be the case .
They are getting to lay in the bed that they thought they were making only for others .
This is one of the only things that might make a few monied interests seriously listen to arguments that there might be something wrong with such strict control.And in my opinion/guess , Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves , upholding a " non-freedom " position ( PF 's ) because it happens to be against what the record label wants .
The record company is getting exactly what it wanted : strict control .
They just made the mistake of believing that only they would get to exercise such control .
The only question now is whether they will realize the nature of their mistake and how their own actions led up to it .
There 's nothing contradictory about recognizing this.If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole , then make it one track .
Or make it movements , like symphonies... etc. For that matter , think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement .
Separately... : ) They 're doing what they believe is best , just as you would do what you believe is best if you were to produce an album or other artistic work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.
Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists?
information wants to be free?
evil copyright?
) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.
This is rather one-dimensional thinking that doesn't account for the message this sends.
This is an instance of that tight control having negative repercussions for the very people who advocate that control and continue to want more of it.
Generally the record labels push for stricter copyright because they see that as something that could only benefit them.
In that manner they are exercising the same type of short-term, one-dimensional thinking.
That's why they have not heretofore been concerned about the negative consequences to their customers and to society, because those are "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses" until it happens to them personally.
Now that they are taking some of that collateral damage, they might realize that they are not completely exempt from the downsides of authoritarian copyright law.
This incident alone probably won't change much, but more examples like this might make them reconsider whether lobbying for even more restrictions is such a good idea.
Generally the people who run these corporations are egotistic, childish, and rather unevolved, as evidenced by their total lack of concern for the harm caused by increasingly unjust and exploitative laws that they try so hard to purchase.
All they want to do is "look out for number one" and maximize their own gains.
That's why arguments about the greater good of society, the purpose of copyright, and the notion of balance between the public domain and the temporary monopoly of copyright are lost upon them.
The reality that their own favorite policies might cost them money is one of the only things that could change their attitude.So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums.
I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music?
I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., unless you're talking about physical media.
And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media ...
Personally I think calling this "evil" is an example of melodrama.
Having said that, if this is indeed "evil", then the record companies are getting some firsthand exposure to why that might be the case.
They are getting to lay in the bed that they thought they were making only for others.
This is one of the only things that might make a few monied interests seriously listen to arguments that there might be something wrong with such strict control.And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.
The record company is getting exactly what it wanted: strict control.
They just made the mistake of believing that only they would get to exercise such control.
The only question now is whether they will realize the nature of their mistake and how their own actions led up to it.
There's nothing contradictory about recognizing this.If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track.
Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc. For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement.
Separately... :)
They're doing what they believe is best, just as you would do what you believe is best if you were to produce an album or other artistic work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443720</id>
	<title>Re:What about listening?</title>
	<author>Wuhao</author>
	<datestamp>1268300340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish?

Otherwise, no, and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish ?
Otherwise , no , and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish?
Otherwise, no, and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445412</id>
	<title>...but if the contract didn't cover online sale...</title>
	<author>Gnavpot</author>
	<datestamp>1268306220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I don't understand this part:<br>"Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales."</p><p>Are they saying: "Oh no, Your Honour, we did not violate the agreement, because there was no agreement covering these sales. We just copied the music without permission and sold it on the Internet."</p><p>And they think that this would not be worse than merely splitting an album without permission?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I do n't understand this part : " Pink Floyd sued , claiming EMI was violating the contract , whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums , not Internet sales .
" Are they saying : " Oh no , Your Honour , we did not violate the agreement , because there was no agreement covering these sales .
We just copied the music without permission and sold it on the Internet .
" And they think that this would not be worse than merely splitting an album without permission ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I don't understand this part:"Pink Floyd sued, claiming EMI was violating the contract, whereas EMI said the contract only applied to physical albums, not Internet sales.
"Are they saying: "Oh no, Your Honour, we did not violate the agreement, because there was no agreement covering these sales.
We just copied the music without permission and sold it on the Internet.
"And they think that this would not be worse than merely splitting an album without permission?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778</id>
	<title>Song flow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never realized how intercoupled the songs on Pink Floyd albums were until I happened to listen to the songs on my mp3 device while set to 'random song'.  It was jumping all over my music collection, and all the Pink Floyd songs were either jarring to come into or ended abruptly.  I can see why they didn't want them split up.  They really are parts of a whole with a few exceptions.</p><p>But c'mon, what balls on EMI.  Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records.  But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never realized how intercoupled the songs on Pink Floyd albums were until I happened to listen to the songs on my mp3 device while set to 'random song' .
It was jumping all over my music collection , and all the Pink Floyd songs were either jarring to come into or ended abruptly .
I can see why they did n't want them split up .
They really are parts of a whole with a few exceptions.But c'mon , what balls on EMI .
Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact , EMI tried to weasel out by saying they were n't selling records .
But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme , so I should n't be surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never realized how intercoupled the songs on Pink Floyd albums were until I happened to listen to the songs on my mp3 device while set to 'random song'.
It was jumping all over my music collection, and all the Pink Floyd songs were either jarring to come into or ended abruptly.
I can see why they didn't want them split up.
They really are parts of a whole with a few exceptions.But c'mon, what balls on EMI.
Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records.
But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442708</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Jazz-Masta</author>
	<datestamp>1268340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a fan of Pink Floyd - some of their music can easily be removed and sold individually. Comfortably Numb, Money, Time, Learning to Fly, etc, can all be enjoyed individually with little to no "loss" in atmosphere.</p><p>This is how it is played on radio, this is how people have been introduced to it. But once you start listening to the CDs as a whole, you'll never want to go back to one-off radio play. Seeing Roger Waters play Dark Side of the Moon was amazing - and you have to agree with Pink Floyd, something is missing when you play each track by itself and out of order.</p><p>Songs like Shine on you Crazy Diamond have to be played together, otherwise it doesn't make much sense. On the radio, DJs will frequently take "Us and Them" and meld it in with Any Color you like, Brain Damage, Eclipse to make sense. Same with parts of Another Brick in the Wall. Listening to many of the Pink Floyd CDs, you can barely tell when one song ends and another begins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a fan of Pink Floyd - some of their music can easily be removed and sold individually .
Comfortably Numb , Money , Time , Learning to Fly , etc , can all be enjoyed individually with little to no " loss " in atmosphere.This is how it is played on radio , this is how people have been introduced to it .
But once you start listening to the CDs as a whole , you 'll never want to go back to one-off radio play .
Seeing Roger Waters play Dark Side of the Moon was amazing - and you have to agree with Pink Floyd , something is missing when you play each track by itself and out of order.Songs like Shine on you Crazy Diamond have to be played together , otherwise it does n't make much sense .
On the radio , DJs will frequently take " Us and Them " and meld it in with Any Color you like , Brain Damage , Eclipse to make sense .
Same with parts of Another Brick in the Wall .
Listening to many of the Pink Floyd CDs , you can barely tell when one song ends and another begins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a fan of Pink Floyd - some of their music can easily be removed and sold individually.
Comfortably Numb, Money, Time, Learning to Fly, etc, can all be enjoyed individually with little to no "loss" in atmosphere.This is how it is played on radio, this is how people have been introduced to it.
But once you start listening to the CDs as a whole, you'll never want to go back to one-off radio play.
Seeing Roger Waters play Dark Side of the Moon was amazing - and you have to agree with Pink Floyd, something is missing when you play each track by itself and out of order.Songs like Shine on you Crazy Diamond have to be played together, otherwise it doesn't make much sense.
On the radio, DJs will frequently take "Us and Them" and meld it in with Any Color you like, Brain Damage, Eclipse to make sense.
Same with parts of Another Brick in the Wall.
Listening to many of the Pink Floyd CDs, you can barely tell when one song ends and another begins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443002</id>
	<title>Re:And if EMI disobeys, Roger Waters will say</title>
	<author>decep</author>
	<datestamp>1268298240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then Nick Mason will cut you up into little pieces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then Nick Mason will cut you up into little pieces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then Nick Mason will cut you up into little pieces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</id>
	<title>So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.</p><p>Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists? information wants to be free?  evil copyright?) should <i>not</i> be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.</p><p>So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums.  I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music?  I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., <i>unless you're talking about physical media.</i>  And PF is now suing over <i>distribution of non-physical media</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>So yes: in my opinion, EMI is breaking a contract.  Bad.</p><p>And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.</p><p>If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track.  Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc.  For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold <i>by movement</i>.  Separately...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this , because they are standing up to the evil record label.Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels ( and/or artists ?
information wants to be free ?
evil copyright ?
) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.So here 's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we 're upset about it , because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums .
I guess that 's their artistic license... but are n't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music ?
I 've heard plenty of arguments how that should n't be allowed , it 's not fair , etc. , unless you 're talking about physical media .
And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media ...So yes : in my opinion , EMI is breaking a contract .
Bad.And in my opinion/guess , Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves , upholding a " non-freedom " position ( PF 's ) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole , then make it one track .
Or make it movements , like symphonies... etc. For that matter , think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement .
Separately... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Slashdot will generally back up PF in this, because they are standing up to the evil record label.Which seems to be somewhat contradictory to the general opinion that record labels (and/or artists?
information wants to be free?
evil copyright?
) should not be allowed to have such tight control over how things are sold.So here's a record label making it EASIER to get tracks and we're upset about it, because PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums.
I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music?
I've heard plenty of arguments how that shouldn't be allowed, it's not fair, etc., unless you're talking about physical media.
And PF is now suing over distribution of non-physical media ...So yes: in my opinion, EMI is breaking a contract.
Bad.And in my opinion/guess, Slashdot is going to generally be contradicting themselves, upholding a "non-freedom" position (PF's) because it happens to be against what the record label wants.If PF wanted it to be listened to as a whole, then make it one track.
Or make it movements, like symphonies... etc.  For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement.
Separately... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447196</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play.</p> </div><p>Let's take it two steps further and force any mp3 taken from a concept album to <i>never</i> be played on its own without the entire rest of the album! Like DVD unskippable tracks.</p><p>That'd be great for artistic integrity, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd take that one step further , I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy " Continue on to next track " feature for random play .
Let 's take it two steps further and force any mp3 taken from a concept album to never be played on its own without the entire rest of the album !
Like DVD unskippable tracks.That 'd be great for artistic integrity , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play.
Let's take it two steps further and force any mp3 taken from a concept album to never be played on its own without the entire rest of the album!
Like DVD unskippable tracks.That'd be great for artistic integrity, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31449020</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268336280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...artists (and even labels) are within their rights to <b>want</b> to get paid.</p></div><p>(My emphasis.)  Sure - but the copyright debate is about whether they have the right to restrict other people's freedom in order to get paid.</p><p>Anyway, philosophically I find Pink Floyd's position in this to be silly (copyright was not created to allow the artist to control the format in which their works are distributed), but I can't help but smile at EMI getting bitten like this.  In the same way, I'm opposed to domestic violence - but if a battered wife squared up and knocked out her abusive husband, you can bet I'd be cheering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...artists ( and even labels ) are within their rights to want to get paid .
( My emphasis .
) Sure - but the copyright debate is about whether they have the right to restrict other people 's freedom in order to get paid.Anyway , philosophically I find Pink Floyd 's position in this to be silly ( copyright was not created to allow the artist to control the format in which their works are distributed ) , but I ca n't help but smile at EMI getting bitten like this .
In the same way , I 'm opposed to domestic violence - but if a battered wife squared up and knocked out her abusive husband , you can bet I 'd be cheering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...artists (and even labels) are within their rights to want to get paid.
(My emphasis.
)  Sure - but the copyright debate is about whether they have the right to restrict other people's freedom in order to get paid.Anyway, philosophically I find Pink Floyd's position in this to be silly (copyright was not created to allow the artist to control the format in which their works are distributed), but I can't help but smile at EMI getting bitten like this.
In the same way, I'm opposed to domestic violence - but if a battered wife squared up and knocked out her abusive husband, you can bet I'd be cheering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447204</id>
	<title>I think Pink  Floyd is right</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1268314920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just listen to "The Wall" or "Dark Side of the Moon". They're both stories told in song across multiple tracks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just listen to " The Wall " or " Dark Side of the Moon " .
They 're both stories told in song across multiple tracks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just listen to "The Wall" or "Dark Side of the Moon".
They're both stories told in song across multiple tracks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442476</id>
	<title>Emi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>all in all, they just ran into a wall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>all in all , they just ran into a wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all in all, they just ran into a wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445046</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268304660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play.</p></div><p>They do. It's called "turn off shuffle play".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd take that one step further , I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy " Continue on to next track " feature for random play.They do .
It 's called " turn off shuffle play " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd take that one step further, I wish mp3 players were designed with a easy "Continue on to next track" feature for random play.They do.
It's called "turn off shuffle play".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442952</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1268298120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only purpose of radio is to destroy artistic integrity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only purpose of radio is to destroy artistic integrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only purpose of radio is to destroy artistic integrity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443956</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268301000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds awesome!  I would absolutely buy that game.  And adult diapers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds awesome !
I would absolutely buy that game .
And adult diapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds awesome!
I would absolutely buy that game.
And adult diapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442884</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't about bundling...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268341140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...this is about a record label subverting a contract.  EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and doesn't want to jeopardize that.  EMI is probably right, Pink Floyd possibly so.  The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI's failure to live up to its contract.</p></div><p>I have not audited their finances, of course, but I seriously doubt that Pink Floyd is hurting for money.  I imagine they are enjoying a large degree of financial security.  Additionally, this is music that has had an enduring appeal for decades now and is not some one-hit wonder or trendy pop music that gets their 15 minutes of fame, milks that for all the money they can get, and fades into obscurity.  For these reasons, I'm more inclined to believe that this is truly an artistic concern over how they want their work to be appreciated.
<br> <br>
In other words, I think it's EMI and only EMI that is concerned about money here.  I believe this is why they took liberties with the contract that were not upheld by the court.  It's good to see some occasional sanity in the copyright realm and I think this sets a desirable precedent.  Congratulations to Pink Floyd for demonstrating that "the system" can occasionally be fair and fulfill its purpose of protecting our rights, as we hear far too many examples to the contrary.  Still, I don't doubt that you're right about one thing: the desirable outcome was quite likely because Pink Floyd can afford good legal representation and therefore would not be so easy for a corporation to push around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is about a record label subverting a contract .
EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks , Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and does n't want to jeopardize that .
EMI is probably right , Pink Floyd possibly so .
The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI 's failure to live up to its contract.I have not audited their finances , of course , but I seriously doubt that Pink Floyd is hurting for money .
I imagine they are enjoying a large degree of financial security .
Additionally , this is music that has had an enduring appeal for decades now and is not some one-hit wonder or trendy pop music that gets their 15 minutes of fame , milks that for all the money they can get , and fades into obscurity .
For these reasons , I 'm more inclined to believe that this is truly an artistic concern over how they want their work to be appreciated .
In other words , I think it 's EMI and only EMI that is concerned about money here .
I believe this is why they took liberties with the contract that were not upheld by the court .
It 's good to see some occasional sanity in the copyright realm and I think this sets a desirable precedent .
Congratulations to Pink Floyd for demonstrating that " the system " can occasionally be fair and fulfill its purpose of protecting our rights , as we hear far too many examples to the contrary .
Still , I do n't doubt that you 're right about one thing : the desirable outcome was quite likely because Pink Floyd can afford good legal representation and therefore would not be so easy for a corporation to push around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is about a record label subverting a contract.
EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums and doesn't want to jeopardize that.
EMI is probably right, Pink Floyd possibly so.
The courts only come in due to the fact that they can actually afford to sue their label over EMI's failure to live up to its contract.I have not audited their finances, of course, but I seriously doubt that Pink Floyd is hurting for money.
I imagine they are enjoying a large degree of financial security.
Additionally, this is music that has had an enduring appeal for decades now and is not some one-hit wonder or trendy pop music that gets their 15 minutes of fame, milks that for all the money they can get, and fades into obscurity.
For these reasons, I'm more inclined to believe that this is truly an artistic concern over how they want their work to be appreciated.
In other words, I think it's EMI and only EMI that is concerned about money here.
I believe this is why they took liberties with the contract that were not upheld by the court.
It's good to see some occasional sanity in the copyright realm and I think this sets a desirable precedent.
Congratulations to Pink Floyd for demonstrating that "the system" can occasionally be fair and fulfill its purpose of protecting our rights, as we hear far too many examples to the contrary.
Still, I don't doubt that you're right about one thing: the desirable outcome was quite likely because Pink Floyd can afford good legal representation and therefore would not be so easy for a corporation to push around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496</id>
	<title>Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?</p><p>If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them.  But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.</p><p>As I said, I doubt they care, but it's interesting to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember , how much money does a band get per ( legally ) downloaded audio track ? If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way , and EMI agreed to it , good for them .
But at the same time , ( assuming they care , they may not ) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.As I said , I doubt they care , but it 's interesting to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember, how much money does a band get per (legally) downloaded audio track?If they want their art to be bundled and only sold that way, and EMI agreed to it, good for them.
But at the same time, (assuming they care, they may not) they could also be limiting themselves on the amount of money they could be making.As I said, I doubt they care, but it's interesting to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447732</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268319000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this flamebait? It's true, he called out a karma whore with a valid point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this flamebait ?
It 's true , he called out a karma whore with a valid point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this flamebait?
It's true, he called out a karma whore with a valid point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443624</id>
	<title>Please don't start your post in the title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bar.  It's just annoying.</p><p>It's called a title bar, not a first sentence bar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bar .
It 's just annoying.It 's called a title bar , not a first sentence bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bar.
It's just annoying.It's called a title bar, not a first sentence bar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443118</id>
	<title>Well, congrats on suckering in a few +mods</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1268298600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as apparently people just blindly click on what they perceive is lulzy, but was really quite dim.</p><p>We're talking about the sale of the songs and albums here; not the one-time listening on a radio station.  Apples and oranges.  Sure, some tracks like Money or Comfortably Numb lend themselves to single airplay, but when was the last time a station played "The Grand Vizier's Garden Party,  Entertainment" ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as apparently people just blindly click on what they perceive is lulzy , but was really quite dim.We 're talking about the sale of the songs and albums here ; not the one-time listening on a radio station .
Apples and oranges .
Sure , some tracks like Money or Comfortably Numb lend themselves to single airplay , but when was the last time a station played " The Grand Vizier 's Garden Party , Entertainment " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as apparently people just blindly click on what they perceive is lulzy, but was really quite dim.We're talking about the sale of the songs and albums here; not the one-time listening on a radio station.
Apples and oranges.
Sure, some tracks like Money or Comfortably Numb lend themselves to single airplay, but when was the last time a station played "The Grand Vizier's Garden Party,  Entertainment" ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443340</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>omfgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1268299260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.</p></div></blockquote><p> Where I grew up, one of the local stations used to play The Wall (and I think Dark Side of the Moon, sometimes) regularly on Sunday nights. But it's not surprising you haven't heard the full albums on the radio: the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio .
Where I grew up , one of the local stations used to play The Wall ( and I think Dark Side of the Moon , sometimes ) regularly on Sunday nights .
But it 's not surprising you have n't heard the full albums on the radio : the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to hear an entire Pink Floyd album played on the radio.
Where I grew up, one of the local stations used to play The Wall (and I think Dark Side of the Moon, sometimes) regularly on Sunday nights.
But it's not surprising you haven't heard the full albums on the radio: the radio is not a medium suited to celebrating long-running conceptual music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444820</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>MostAwesomeDude</author>
	<datestamp>1268303820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Your* radio station, maybe. I am fortunate enough to live in Eugene, OR, and the only radio station that plays Pink Floyd typically plays large snippets only. Of course, the payola people in charge don't like it, so you usually only hear it later at night, but there's nothing better than driving at night and having your regular shitfest of Nickelback, Breaking Benjamin, and Three Days Grace, interrupted by a quarter of The Wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Your * radio station , maybe .
I am fortunate enough to live in Eugene , OR , and the only radio station that plays Pink Floyd typically plays large snippets only .
Of course , the payola people in charge do n't like it , so you usually only hear it later at night , but there 's nothing better than driving at night and having your regular shitfest of Nickelback , Breaking Benjamin , and Three Days Grace , interrupted by a quarter of The Wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Your* radio station, maybe.
I am fortunate enough to live in Eugene, OR, and the only radio station that plays Pink Floyd typically plays large snippets only.
Of course, the payola people in charge don't like it, so you usually only hear it later at night, but there's nothing better than driving at night and having your regular shitfest of Nickelback, Breaking Benjamin, and Three Days Grace, interrupted by a quarter of The Wall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447560</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1268317380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?</i> </p><p>The chapter head is a teaser and a bookmark.</p><p>It urges the reader to continue on. But allows him a much-needed time-out.</p><p>Back in the day - and it wasn't so very long ago, really - novel-length stories were often first published in serial installments in newspaper and magazines like the old Saturday Evening Post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books , if they never intend on having chapters published individually ?
The chapter head is a teaser and a bookmark.It urges the reader to continue on .
But allows him a much-needed time-out.Back in the day - and it was n't so very long ago , really - novel-length stories were often first published in serial installments in newspaper and magazines like the old Saturday Evening Post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?
The chapter head is a teaser and a bookmark.It urges the reader to continue on.
But allows him a much-needed time-out.Back in the day - and it wasn't so very long ago, really - novel-length stories were often first published in serial installments in newspaper and magazines like the old Saturday Evening Post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442928</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268298060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.'</i> <br>
<br>
I can tell that you don't listen to any classical music. It's about the <i>composition</i> as a whole, which is comprised of smaller <i>pieces</i> or <i>movements</i>. Floyd is (well, was) doing the same thing, except via modern instrumentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless .
' I can tell that you do n't listen to any classical music .
It 's about the composition as a whole , which is comprised of smaller pieces or movements .
Floyd is ( well , was ) doing the same thing , except via modern instrumentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I question why Pink Floyd bothered to divide them into tracks or to name them different names if they truly were 'seamless.
' 

I can tell that you don't listen to any classical music.
It's about the composition as a whole, which is comprised of smaller pieces or movements.
Floyd is (well, was) doing the same thing, except via modern instrumentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450064</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Scrab</author>
	<datestamp>1268398200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, the idea of Rock Band : Endurance is a compelling one.  Have a Rock Bank that makes you work really hard for your unlocks...

One of the tracks for drums could be Led Zeppelin's Moby Dick from "How the West was Won".

The drum solo is 15 or so minutes long...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , the idea of Rock Band : Endurance is a compelling one .
Have a Rock Bank that makes you work really hard for your unlocks.. . One of the tracks for drums could be Led Zeppelin 's Moby Dick from " How the West was Won " .
The drum solo is 15 or so minutes long.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, the idea of Rock Band : Endurance is a compelling one.
Have a Rock Bank that makes you work really hard for your unlocks...

One of the tracks for drums could be Led Zeppelin's Moby Dick from "How the West was Won".
The drum solo is 15 or so minutes long...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446602</id>
	<title>Re:...but if the contract didn't cover online sale</title>
	<author>neilsnat</author>
	<datestamp>1268311560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another point worth making is that the record companies actually use (some of) the concepts to do with physical media (i.e. breakage) when applied to online distribution.
Am I being overly cynical to note that they will only IF the monetary advantage goes to the record company as opposed to the artists?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another point worth making is that the record companies actually use ( some of ) the concepts to do with physical media ( i.e .
breakage ) when applied to online distribution .
Am I being overly cynical to note that they will only IF the monetary advantage goes to the record company as opposed to the artists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another point worth making is that the record companies actually use (some of) the concepts to do with physical media (i.e.
breakage) when applied to online distribution.
Am I being overly cynical to note that they will only IF the monetary advantage goes to the record company as opposed to the artists?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268298660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books , if they never intend on having chapters published individually ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do authors often give names to chapters in their books, if they never intend on having chapters published individually?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445134</id>
	<title>Pink Floyd is a real band</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268305080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those guys, even when they were young, made albums that were consolidated works of art. They didn't consist of a single surrounded by filler. Watch the documentary about The Dark Side of the Moon album on Netflix. Even today, as old as they are, they can pick up an instrument and play and you're transported back to listening to the album and the emotions you felt. There is meaning behind their music.</p><p>No comparison between them and the garbage that is mass produced and lip sync'd on stage today.</p><p>I would agree w/them too, in their case, yeah, if they have a contract to keep their songs together in an album for artistic reasons, I 100\% agree and understand.</p><p>I bought those CDs for a few popular tracks and discovered the rest of the music on the album and am happy they were packaged like they were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those guys , even when they were young , made albums that were consolidated works of art .
They did n't consist of a single surrounded by filler .
Watch the documentary about The Dark Side of the Moon album on Netflix .
Even today , as old as they are , they can pick up an instrument and play and you 're transported back to listening to the album and the emotions you felt .
There is meaning behind their music.No comparison between them and the garbage that is mass produced and lip sync 'd on stage today.I would agree w/them too , in their case , yeah , if they have a contract to keep their songs together in an album for artistic reasons , I 100 \ % agree and understand.I bought those CDs for a few popular tracks and discovered the rest of the music on the album and am happy they were packaged like they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those guys, even when they were young, made albums that were consolidated works of art.
They didn't consist of a single surrounded by filler.
Watch the documentary about The Dark Side of the Moon album on Netflix.
Even today, as old as they are, they can pick up an instrument and play and you're transported back to listening to the album and the emotions you felt.
There is meaning behind their music.No comparison between them and the garbage that is mass produced and lip sync'd on stage today.I would agree w/them too, in their case, yeah, if they have a contract to keep their songs together in an album for artistic reasons, I 100\% agree and understand.I bought those CDs for a few popular tracks and discovered the rest of the music on the album and am happy they were packaged like they were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485474</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to break it to you, but there were bad singles on albums since the very first album. Pink Floyd is crazy if they think ever single song on every album deserves the same listener attention.  Some songs are just better than others and some are indeed fluff.</p><p>If Pink Floyd were serious, why not just make a single track that plays from front to end, forcing the listener to hear it the way that is in line with their artistic vision?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to break it to you , but there were bad singles on albums since the very first album .
Pink Floyd is crazy if they think ever single song on every album deserves the same listener attention .
Some songs are just better than others and some are indeed fluff.If Pink Floyd were serious , why not just make a single track that plays from front to end , forcing the listener to hear it the way that is in line with their artistic vision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to break it to you, but there were bad singles on albums since the very first album.
Pink Floyd is crazy if they think ever single song on every album deserves the same listener attention.
Some songs are just better than others and some are indeed fluff.If Pink Floyd were serious, why not just make a single track that plays from front to end, forcing the listener to hear it the way that is in line with their artistic vision?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445750</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1268307720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wat they were thinking was, in the words of the record company exec from the "Chef Aid" episode of South Park: "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wat they were thinking was , in the words of the record company exec from the " Chef Aid " episode of South Park : " I AM ABOVE THE LAW ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wat they were thinking was, in the words of the record company exec from the "Chef Aid" episode of South Park: "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445580</id>
	<title>Re:See if I care...</title>
	<author>thetartanavenger</author>
	<datestamp>1268306880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've still won. Their art is intact as you don't have single songs but instead whole albums. That was their point.</p><p>And pink floyd have openly opposed new piracy legislation. As has been said over and over again, this isn't about money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've still won .
Their art is intact as you do n't have single songs but instead whole albums .
That was their point.And pink floyd have openly opposed new piracy legislation .
As has been said over and over again , this is n't about money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've still won.
Their art is intact as you don't have single songs but instead whole albums.
That was their point.And pink floyd have openly opposed new piracy legislation.
As has been said over and over again, this isn't about money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445144</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1268305140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't mind the tight control. It is the fact that they can maintain that tight control for excessively long. If copyright was for a reasonable length of time (say, 14 or 28 years), then there is no problem with the very tight control. At the end of copyright it becomes public domain and anybody can do whatever they want with it. Since EMI is one of the groups responsible for copyright being so excessivley long, it is good to see them getting hit with the consequences of that state of affairs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind the tight control .
It is the fact that they can maintain that tight control for excessively long .
If copyright was for a reasonable length of time ( say , 14 or 28 years ) , then there is no problem with the very tight control .
At the end of copyright it becomes public domain and anybody can do whatever they want with it .
Since EMI is one of the groups responsible for copyright being so excessivley long , it is good to see them getting hit with the consequences of that state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind the tight control.
It is the fact that they can maintain that tight control for excessively long.
If copyright was for a reasonable length of time (say, 14 or 28 years), then there is no problem with the very tight control.
At the end of copyright it becomes public domain and anybody can do whatever they want with it.
Since EMI is one of the groups responsible for copyright being so excessivley long, it is good to see them getting hit with the consequences of that state of affairs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448668</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Xyde</author>
	<datestamp>1268329140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flip the album cover while the first track is still playing and select the next track. It's not one click but two is still pretty good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flip the album cover while the first track is still playing and select the next track .
It 's not one click but two is still pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flip the album cover while the first track is still playing and select the next track.
It's not one click but two is still pretty good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447242</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268315220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums.  I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music?</p>  </div><p>Yes, they are.</p><p>Well, they're being within well their legal rights, but I still think what they're asking is silly as is the justification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums .
I guess that 's their artistic license... but are n't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music ?
Yes , they are.Well , they 're being within well their legal rights , but I still think what they 're asking is silly as is the justification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PinkFloyd wants to only sell complete albums.
I guess that's their artistic license... but aren't they being evil and putting strict terms on how you acquire their music?
Yes, they are.Well, they're being within well their legal rights, but I still think what they're asking is silly as is the justification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445760</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>colesw</author>
	<datestamp>1268307780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually a ruling in against Pink Floyd would have been great.  If EMI had no contract to sell digital music then PF would own the rights to digital distribution and could tell EMI to go to hell.  As could a lot of other artists, although probably not recent ones where that would be in their contracts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually a ruling in against Pink Floyd would have been great .
If EMI had no contract to sell digital music then PF would own the rights to digital distribution and could tell EMI to go to hell .
As could a lot of other artists , although probably not recent ones where that would be in their contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually a ruling in against Pink Floyd would have been great.
If EMI had no contract to sell digital music then PF would own the rights to digital distribution and could tell EMI to go to hell.
As could a lot of other artists, although probably not recent ones where that would be in their contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448564</id>
	<title>Re:Radio?</title>
	<author>Raul Acevedo</author>
	<datestamp>1268328000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their albums do the same thing by existing as separate tracks.  If they really meant this "artistic integrity" then their CDs would have a single track as the whole album.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their albums do the same thing by existing as separate tracks .
If they really meant this " artistic integrity " then their CDs would have a single track as the whole album .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their albums do the same thing by existing as separate tracks.
If they really meant this "artistic integrity" then their CDs would have a single track as the whole album.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442842</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268341020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't think this sort of thing bothers me.  I think it will probably hurt their sales in some ways, but whatever.... as long as they sell it DRM-free and don't try to negotiate weird/strict licensing deals and stuff like that.
</p><p>I know we like to live in a black and white world where every action is either evil or terrific based purely on the action itself, but the motivations really do matter.  I think it sucks when a record label picks out the couple of songs that you really want on an album and says they're "Album only", i.e. when every other song on some compilation album is available for purchase  on its own, but the 1 big hit song on the album in unavailable for purchase by itself.  That's annoying.
</p><p>But the artist himself saying, "I developed this to be a whole album, and I don't want people purchasing parts"...?  Meh.  I can live with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't think this sort of thing bothers me .
I think it will probably hurt their sales in some ways , but whatever.... as long as they sell it DRM-free and do n't try to negotiate weird/strict licensing deals and stuff like that .
I know we like to live in a black and white world where every action is either evil or terrific based purely on the action itself , but the motivations really do matter .
I think it sucks when a record label picks out the couple of songs that you really want on an album and says they 're " Album only " , i.e .
when every other song on some compilation album is available for purchase on its own , but the 1 big hit song on the album in unavailable for purchase by itself .
That 's annoying .
But the artist himself saying , " I developed this to be a whole album , and I do n't want people purchasing parts " ... ?
Meh. I can live with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't think this sort of thing bothers me.
I think it will probably hurt their sales in some ways, but whatever.... as long as they sell it DRM-free and don't try to negotiate weird/strict licensing deals and stuff like that.
I know we like to live in a black and white world where every action is either evil or terrific based purely on the action itself, but the motivations really do matter.
I think it sucks when a record label picks out the couple of songs that you really want on an album and says they're "Album only", i.e.
when every other song on some compilation album is available for purchase  on its own, but the 1 big hit song on the album in unavailable for purchase by itself.
That's annoying.
But the artist himself saying, "I developed this to be a whole album, and I don't want people purchasing parts"...?
Meh.  I can live with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450898</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>MotorMachineMercenar</author>
	<datestamp>1268405160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize that the single was the standard well before MTV, CD or even LP?

Some of the greatest music is as single songs rather than albums, from Robert Johnson to Frank Sinatra.

I don't understand why some people consider it a mutually exclusive setup. I can appreciate B.B. King's "The Thrill Is Gone" (the single) just like I can appreciate Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon" (the album). There's no reason why an excellent songwriter should be forced to create a whole album when all they have is a three-minute song on a certain theme or topic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the single was the standard well before MTV , CD or even LP ?
Some of the greatest music is as single songs rather than albums , from Robert Johnson to Frank Sinatra .
I do n't understand why some people consider it a mutually exclusive setup .
I can appreciate B.B .
King 's " The Thrill Is Gone " ( the single ) just like I can appreciate Pink Floyd 's " Dark Side Of The Moon " ( the album ) .
There 's no reason why an excellent songwriter should be forced to create a whole album when all they have is a three-minute song on a certain theme or topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the single was the standard well before MTV, CD or even LP?
Some of the greatest music is as single songs rather than albums, from Robert Johnson to Frank Sinatra.
I don't understand why some people consider it a mutually exclusive setup.
I can appreciate B.B.
King's "The Thrill Is Gone" (the single) just like I can appreciate Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of The Moon" (the album).
There's no reason why an excellent songwriter should be forced to create a whole album when all they have is a three-minute song on a certain theme or topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444318</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1268302140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those were released as singles, and are probably available as singles, and the band agreed to those being released individually. What EMI can't do, by analogy, is take each of the 12 apostles from The Last Supper and exhibit them as individual works of art or sell prints of them. <b> <i>You</i> </b> can buy the entire work and then select individual parts for personal enjoyment, just like I can play a single track from my CD of Dark Side of the Moon, so your ability to enjoy their art in the way that you wish is not compromised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those were released as singles , and are probably available as singles , and the band agreed to those being released individually .
What EMI ca n't do , by analogy , is take each of the 12 apostles from The Last Supper and exhibit them as individual works of art or sell prints of them .
You can buy the entire work and then select individual parts for personal enjoyment , just like I can play a single track from my CD of Dark Side of the Moon , so your ability to enjoy their art in the way that you wish is not compromised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those were released as singles, and are probably available as singles, and the band agreed to those being released individually.
What EMI can't do, by analogy, is take each of the 12 apostles from The Last Supper and exhibit them as individual works of art or sell prints of them.
You  can buy the entire work and then select individual parts for personal enjoyment, just like I can play a single track from my CD of Dark Side of the Moon, so your ability to enjoy their art in the way that you wish is not compromised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445680</id>
	<title>What if EMI were the plaintiff?</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1268307420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would the masses in here howl out at the evil studio locking down content? For instance, Disney withholds titles from sale. Are they evil, or is it artistic integrity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the masses in here howl out at the evil studio locking down content ?
For instance , Disney withholds titles from sale .
Are they evil , or is it artistic integrity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the masses in here howl out at the evil studio locking down content?
For instance, Disney withholds titles from sale.
Are they evil, or is it artistic integrity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445332</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268305980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Raving and Drooling" is on the ROIO "Dogs and Sheep." I was dumb enough to pay $150 to win it on eBay before I knew what an ROIO was.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Raving and Drooling " is on the ROIO " Dogs and Sheep .
" I was dumb enough to pay $ 150 to win it on eBay before I knew what an ROIO was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Raving and Drooling" is on the ROIO "Dogs and Sheep.
" I was dumb enough to pay $150 to win it on eBay before I knew what an ROIO was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447646</id>
	<title>Re:Different music concept</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1268318280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both short and long duration music has been around for centuries. The long format has <i>tended</i> to be "serious" music, the short to be dance music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both short and long duration music has been around for centuries .
The long format has tended to be " serious " music , the short to be dance music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both short and long duration music has been around for centuries.
The long format has tended to be "serious" music, the short to be dance music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445968</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Incadenza</author>
	<datestamp>1268308560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It'd be cool to even just be able to do an "album shuffle" mode where all the songs on an album are played in order before randomly selecting the next album.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Car radios often have the option &lsquo;album shuffle&rsquo;. Which means: shuffle all tracks on this album... I made the error to press that button more than once!!!. <br>
Shuffle by album as you meant, random shuffling the album sequence instead of the track sequence makes a lot more sense to me, especially with 20-album MP3 CDrs in the player.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'd be cool to even just be able to do an " album shuffle " mode where all the songs on an album are played in order before randomly selecting the next album .
Car radios often have the option    album shuffle    .
Which means : shuffle all tracks on this album... I made the error to press that button more than once ! ! ! .
Shuffle by album as you meant , random shuffling the album sequence instead of the track sequence makes a lot more sense to me , especially with 20-album MP3 CDrs in the player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'd be cool to even just be able to do an "album shuffle" mode where all the songs on an album are played in order before randomly selecting the next album.
Car radios often have the option ‘album shuffle’.
Which means: shuffle all tracks on this album... I made the error to press that button more than once!!!.
Shuffle by album as you meant, random shuffling the album sequence instead of the track sequence makes a lot more sense to me, especially with 20-album MP3 CDrs in the player.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443684</id>
	<title>Re:Song flow</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1268300160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But c'mon, what balls on EMI. Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records. But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.</p></div><p>It's just business as usual for the MAFIAA.</p><p>Remember the hollywood writers strike 3-4 years ago?  The main issue there was getting paid for web-broadcasts and DVDs.  Prior to the strike the studios' standard approach to web-broadcasts was to pay no royalties because they weren't charging anything for the downloads.  Obviously the advertisements on the webpage and the streaming ads before and during the web-broadcast were generating revenue but because they weren't charging for the broadcast itself (unlike the way they charge affiliates for the right to broadcast over the air) they were paying the writers bupkiss.</p><p>The BSG writers even swore off "webisodes" after the first set because Sci-Fi/NBC pulled that shit on them.</p><p>Here's what Chuck Lorre (creator of The Big Bang Theory) said about the strike:<br><a href="http://www.chucklorre.com/index-2hm.php?p=197" title="chucklorre.com">http://www.chucklorre.com/index-2hm.php?p=197</a> [chucklorre.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But c'mon , what balls on EMI .
Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact , EMI tried to weasel out by saying they were n't selling records .
But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme , so I should n't be surprised.It 's just business as usual for the MAFIAA.Remember the hollywood writers strike 3-4 years ago ?
The main issue there was getting paid for web-broadcasts and DVDs .
Prior to the strike the studios ' standard approach to web-broadcasts was to pay no royalties because they were n't charging anything for the downloads .
Obviously the advertisements on the webpage and the streaming ads before and during the web-broadcast were generating revenue but because they were n't charging for the broadcast itself ( unlike the way they charge affiliates for the right to broadcast over the air ) they were paying the writers bupkiss.The BSG writers even swore off " webisodes " after the first set because Sci-Fi/NBC pulled that shit on them.Here 's what Chuck Lorre ( creator of The Big Bang Theory ) said about the strike : http : //www.chucklorre.com/index-2hm.php ? p = 197 [ chucklorre.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But c'mon, what balls on EMI.
Because they signed a contract that said EMI could only sell the records if they were intact, EMI tried to weasel out by saying they weren't selling records.
But then I remember this is one of the labels behind the RIAA extortion scheme, so I shouldn't be surprised.It's just business as usual for the MAFIAA.Remember the hollywood writers strike 3-4 years ago?
The main issue there was getting paid for web-broadcasts and DVDs.
Prior to the strike the studios' standard approach to web-broadcasts was to pay no royalties because they weren't charging anything for the downloads.
Obviously the advertisements on the webpage and the streaming ads before and during the web-broadcast were generating revenue but because they weren't charging for the broadcast itself (unlike the way they charge affiliates for the right to broadcast over the air) they were paying the writers bupkiss.The BSG writers even swore off "webisodes" after the first set because Sci-Fi/NBC pulled that shit on them.Here's what Chuck Lorre (creator of The Big Bang Theory) said about the strike:http://www.chucklorre.com/index-2hm.php?p=197 [chucklorre.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444894</id>
	<title>Re:A win is a win.</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1268304060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You almost had it right, but then you got confused.  It's nice to see that a judge will enforce the <i>plain language of the contract</i>.  He doesn't give a rat's ass about artistic integrity.  He cares about the integrity of the law.  EMI signed a contract.  The terms of the contract are not illegal.  Therefore EMI must abide by the contract.  The judge barely had to engage his brain for this.  The only thinking he had to do was to understand that adding the phrase "on the Internet" to the actions of EMI doesn't magically give them an out from a contract that had no limitations of ways or means of making the sales.  Just limitations on what can be sold.
</p><p>
It's too bad he doesn't work for the patent office, but I guess we can be happy that there's at least one judge in Britain that doesn't become all befuddled when a lawyer snaps "on the Internet" at him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You almost had it right , but then you got confused .
It 's nice to see that a judge will enforce the plain language of the contract .
He does n't give a rat 's ass about artistic integrity .
He cares about the integrity of the law .
EMI signed a contract .
The terms of the contract are not illegal .
Therefore EMI must abide by the contract .
The judge barely had to engage his brain for this .
The only thinking he had to do was to understand that adding the phrase " on the Internet " to the actions of EMI does n't magically give them an out from a contract that had no limitations of ways or means of making the sales .
Just limitations on what can be sold .
It 's too bad he does n't work for the patent office , but I guess we can be happy that there 's at least one judge in Britain that does n't become all befuddled when a lawyer snaps " on the Internet " at him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You almost had it right, but then you got confused.
It's nice to see that a judge will enforce the plain language of the contract.
He doesn't give a rat's ass about artistic integrity.
He cares about the integrity of the law.
EMI signed a contract.
The terms of the contract are not illegal.
Therefore EMI must abide by the contract.
The judge barely had to engage his brain for this.
The only thinking he had to do was to understand that adding the phrase "on the Internet" to the actions of EMI doesn't magically give them an out from a contract that had no limitations of ways or means of making the sales.
Just limitations on what can be sold.
It's too bad he doesn't work for the patent office, but I guess we can be happy that there's at least one judge in Britain that doesn't become all befuddled when a lawyer snaps "on the Internet" at him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31458402</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>Grygus</author>
	<datestamp>1268396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given that they approved individual songs for radio play and the like would seem to indicate that they aren't being pretentious assholes so much as retaining some vestiges of power over the record label.  They're not trying to tell you how to listen to the music; they're telling EMI how they can make money off of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that they approved individual songs for radio play and the like would seem to indicate that they are n't being pretentious assholes so much as retaining some vestiges of power over the record label .
They 're not trying to tell you how to listen to the music ; they 're telling EMI how they can make money off of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that they approved individual songs for radio play and the like would seem to indicate that they aren't being pretentious assholes so much as retaining some vestiges of power over the record label.
They're not trying to tell you how to listen to the music; they're telling EMI how they can make money off of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485432</id>
	<title>Re:I Agree With The Mighty Floyd...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1268682300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right. And I'm sure you've never skipped a track or shuffled your mighty Pink Floyd CDs?</p><p>A+ for the rest of the rant though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
And I 'm sure you 've never skipped a track or shuffled your mighty Pink Floyd CDs ? A + for the rest of the rant though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
And I'm sure you've never skipped a track or shuffled your mighty Pink Floyd CDs?A+ for the rest of the rant though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443778</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268300460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This makes sense for all of their albums past Meddle (well, including Meddle, really), since they were "concept albums" and are intended to be listened to straight through. There are very few Pink Floyd tracks that can be appreciated to the fullest as a single track.</p><p>Sadly, this is something that is lost on record labels today; they're in it for the quick buck rather than slowly nurturing future stadium-filling dinosaurs. Why invest in real artists who are composers, lyricists and musicians and will sell only to a cult following for the first 2-3 albums until they hit critical mass and make it really big, when you can just hire some young skank with big tits who can barely sing but is listenable when you run her voice through three levels of vocal processing, and you have songs already written by other writers and just need a pretty face to make a quick buck selling music and of course posters and other merchandise?  Instead of making huge profits down the road they're in it for the now, with a steady stream of moderately-selling hits, and when the "pop artist" proves to be a train wreck and wigs out after a drug overdose or breakup or other drama queen crap, you already have songs and session musicians ready to be paired up with another young skank you can market.</p><p>I miss concept albums; most such artists recorded before my time (mostly my parents' generation) but progressive rock is my favorite genre. I can listen to practically very Pink Floyd album over and over and over again without getting sick of them. There are not many artists or even genres I can say that about, except possibly classical. In fact, most progressive rock is concerned about structure/form and quality that it could almost be considered a modern form of classical.  It's not the overcompressed, over-processed vocals crap that has no semblance of dynamic range that passes for "pop" music today.  Listen to Umagumma sometime; it was intended to be a purely experimental album (they did some really funky stuff including even partially disassembling pianos and modifying them) in its time (a double album with a live recording disc as a bonus) and the members of PF are embarassed about it today, but it's still really interesting to listen to with the volume turned up. The dynamic range is phenomenal and that alone makes it worth listening to, and Rick's tracks in particular are really enjoyable.  Roger's tracks, well, they're just weird, especially "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" (I didn't even have to look up the title to check it- despite the length it's title not easily forgotten) but the weirdness doesn't detract from its interesting nature.</p><p>I'm glad they took this stand. I own every album of theirs (as well as every unauthorised bootleg I've found in music stores, such as "the eclipse" and a few other Italian-origin box sets) and have most of them ripped to my iPhone, and listen to them quite often - and most of the time I listen to them in the order originally intended. The songs are so interelated and transition very well going from one to the other that I think splitting them apart would be a shame, because people who are just discovering the genre now would miss out on fully enjoying the compositions.</p><p>I'd love to track down a lot of the ROIO bootlegs (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg\_recording" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg\_recording</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://www.pf-roio.de/roio/roio-cd-index-name.html" title="pf-roio.de">http://www.pf-roio.de/roio/roio-cd-index-name.html</a> [pf-roio.de] ), especially Pre-animals concerts where they played "raving and drooling" (which I've never heard) and also various recordings of The Wall concerts, especially the part where Roger ad-libs prior to "Run like Hell."</p><p>Sadly, I do not own any Pink Floyd works on vinyl.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This makes sense for all of their albums past Meddle ( well , including Meddle , really ) , since they were " concept albums " and are intended to be listened to straight through .
There are very few Pink Floyd tracks that can be appreciated to the fullest as a single track.Sadly , this is something that is lost on record labels today ; they 're in it for the quick buck rather than slowly nurturing future stadium-filling dinosaurs .
Why invest in real artists who are composers , lyricists and musicians and will sell only to a cult following for the first 2-3 albums until they hit critical mass and make it really big , when you can just hire some young skank with big tits who can barely sing but is listenable when you run her voice through three levels of vocal processing , and you have songs already written by other writers and just need a pretty face to make a quick buck selling music and of course posters and other merchandise ?
Instead of making huge profits down the road they 're in it for the now , with a steady stream of moderately-selling hits , and when the " pop artist " proves to be a train wreck and wigs out after a drug overdose or breakup or other drama queen crap , you already have songs and session musicians ready to be paired up with another young skank you can market.I miss concept albums ; most such artists recorded before my time ( mostly my parents ' generation ) but progressive rock is my favorite genre .
I can listen to practically very Pink Floyd album over and over and over again without getting sick of them .
There are not many artists or even genres I can say that about , except possibly classical .
In fact , most progressive rock is concerned about structure/form and quality that it could almost be considered a modern form of classical .
It 's not the overcompressed , over-processed vocals crap that has no semblance of dynamic range that passes for " pop " music today .
Listen to Umagumma sometime ; it was intended to be a purely experimental album ( they did some really funky stuff including even partially disassembling pianos and modifying them ) in its time ( a double album with a live recording disc as a bonus ) and the members of PF are embarassed about it today , but it 's still really interesting to listen to with the volume turned up .
The dynamic range is phenomenal and that alone makes it worth listening to , and Rick 's tracks in particular are really enjoyable .
Roger 's tracks , well , they 're just weird , especially " Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict " ( I did n't even have to look up the title to check it- despite the length it 's title not easily forgotten ) but the weirdness does n't detract from its interesting nature.I 'm glad they took this stand .
I own every album of theirs ( as well as every unauthorised bootleg I 've found in music stores , such as " the eclipse " and a few other Italian-origin box sets ) and have most of them ripped to my iPhone , and listen to them quite often - and most of the time I listen to them in the order originally intended .
The songs are so interelated and transition very well going from one to the other that I think splitting them apart would be a shame , because people who are just discovering the genre now would miss out on fully enjoying the compositions.I 'd love to track down a lot of the ROIO bootlegs ( see http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg \ _recording [ wikipedia.org ] and http : //www.pf-roio.de/roio/roio-cd-index-name.html [ pf-roio.de ] ) , especially Pre-animals concerts where they played " raving and drooling " ( which I 've never heard ) and also various recordings of The Wall concerts , especially the part where Roger ad-libs prior to " Run like Hell .
" Sadly , I do not own any Pink Floyd works on vinyl .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This makes sense for all of their albums past Meddle (well, including Meddle, really), since they were "concept albums" and are intended to be listened to straight through.
There are very few Pink Floyd tracks that can be appreciated to the fullest as a single track.Sadly, this is something that is lost on record labels today; they're in it for the quick buck rather than slowly nurturing future stadium-filling dinosaurs.
Why invest in real artists who are composers, lyricists and musicians and will sell only to a cult following for the first 2-3 albums until they hit critical mass and make it really big, when you can just hire some young skank with big tits who can barely sing but is listenable when you run her voice through three levels of vocal processing, and you have songs already written by other writers and just need a pretty face to make a quick buck selling music and of course posters and other merchandise?
Instead of making huge profits down the road they're in it for the now, with a steady stream of moderately-selling hits, and when the "pop artist" proves to be a train wreck and wigs out after a drug overdose or breakup or other drama queen crap, you already have songs and session musicians ready to be paired up with another young skank you can market.I miss concept albums; most such artists recorded before my time (mostly my parents' generation) but progressive rock is my favorite genre.
I can listen to practically very Pink Floyd album over and over and over again without getting sick of them.
There are not many artists or even genres I can say that about, except possibly classical.
In fact, most progressive rock is concerned about structure/form and quality that it could almost be considered a modern form of classical.
It's not the overcompressed, over-processed vocals crap that has no semblance of dynamic range that passes for "pop" music today.
Listen to Umagumma sometime; it was intended to be a purely experimental album (they did some really funky stuff including even partially disassembling pianos and modifying them) in its time (a double album with a live recording disc as a bonus) and the members of PF are embarassed about it today, but it's still really interesting to listen to with the volume turned up.
The dynamic range is phenomenal and that alone makes it worth listening to, and Rick's tracks in particular are really enjoyable.
Roger's tracks, well, they're just weird, especially "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" (I didn't even have to look up the title to check it- despite the length it's title not easily forgotten) but the weirdness doesn't detract from its interesting nature.I'm glad they took this stand.
I own every album of theirs (as well as every unauthorised bootleg I've found in music stores, such as "the eclipse" and a few other Italian-origin box sets) and have most of them ripped to my iPhone, and listen to them quite often - and most of the time I listen to them in the order originally intended.
The songs are so interelated and transition very well going from one to the other that I think splitting them apart would be a shame, because people who are just discovering the genre now would miss out on fully enjoying the compositions.I'd love to track down a lot of the ROIO bootlegs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg\_recording [wikipedia.org] and http://www.pf-roio.de/roio/roio-cd-index-name.html [pf-roio.de] ), especially Pre-animals concerts where they played "raving and drooling" (which I've never heard) and also various recordings of The Wall concerts, especially the part where Roger ad-libs prior to "Run like Hell.
"Sadly, I do not own any Pink Floyd works on vinyl.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447478</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268316780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?"."</p><p>This might have something to do with it?</p><p><a href="http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-emi-crashes-1.75-billion-into-the-red/" title="paidcontent.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-emi-crashes-1.75-billion-into-the-red/</a> [paidcontent.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So rather than say " yay , Pink Floyd won !
" , we should be saying " what the fuck did EMI think they were doing ? " .
" This might have something to do with it ? http : //paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-emi-crashes-1.75-billion-into-the-red/ [ paidcontent.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So rather than say "yay, Pink Floyd won!
", we should be saying "what the fuck did EMI think they were doing?".
"This might have something to do with it?http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-emi-crashes-1.75-billion-into-the-red/ [paidcontent.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444108</id>
	<title>the whole album, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268301540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>also, radio stations should only be able to play entire albums uninterrupted, not a song here and there. or does that kind of publicity not bother the art?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>also , radio stations should only be able to play entire albums uninterrupted , not a song here and there .
or does that kind of publicity not bother the art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>also, radio stations should only be able to play entire albums uninterrupted, not a song here and there.
or does that kind of publicity not bother the art?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444756</id>
	<title>Re:And if EMI disobeys, Roger Waters will say</title>
	<author>BadBlood</author>
	<datestamp>1268303640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I recall correctly, 'twas Nick Mason who uttered those words.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meddle" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meddle</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , 't was Nick Mason who uttered those words.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meddle [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, 'twas Nick Mason who uttered those words.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meddle [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442630</id>
	<title>And if EMI disobeys, Roger Waters will say</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1268340480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of these days , I 'm going to cut you into little pieces "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of these days, I'm going to cut you into little pieces"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443286</id>
	<title>Just for fun:</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1268299140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hubpages.com/hub/Investigating-DARK-SIDE-OF-THE-RAINBOW" title="hubpages.com">An oldie, but a goody.</a> [hubpages.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>An oldie , but a goody .
[ hubpages.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An oldie, but a goody.
[hubpages.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442986</id>
	<title>Easy Fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268298240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All they have to do is concatenate all the songs into one file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they have to do is concatenate all the songs into one file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they have to do is concatenate all the songs into one file.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444172</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>FroBugg</author>
	<datestamp>1268301720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's three parties involved in the music business: The Artist, The Distributor, and The Consumer.</p><p>We like the Consumer, obviously, since that's us.</p><p>People usually like the Artist, too, because those are the guys that are actually producing the music.</p><p>The problem is the Distributor. We tend to think that the Distributor should either be working directly for the Artist, helping him get his message and his music out to the world, or for the Consumer, helping us find and purchase and own whatever music we want to hear. Instead, the Distributor works for himself and his investors. He sees this movement of music from the Artist to the Consumer and says, "How can I make money off that?" Not, "How can I facilitate that," except to the point where facilitating makes him money.</p><p>If the Distributor were a servant of either of the two parties, we'd be in much better shape. With the power of the internet that's starting to happen in some cases, but the big labels and their associates are still part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's three parties involved in the music business : The Artist , The Distributor , and The Consumer.We like the Consumer , obviously , since that 's us.People usually like the Artist , too , because those are the guys that are actually producing the music.The problem is the Distributor .
We tend to think that the Distributor should either be working directly for the Artist , helping him get his message and his music out to the world , or for the Consumer , helping us find and purchase and own whatever music we want to hear .
Instead , the Distributor works for himself and his investors .
He sees this movement of music from the Artist to the Consumer and says , " How can I make money off that ?
" Not , " How can I facilitate that , " except to the point where facilitating makes him money.If the Distributor were a servant of either of the two parties , we 'd be in much better shape .
With the power of the internet that 's starting to happen in some cases , but the big labels and their associates are still part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's three parties involved in the music business: The Artist, The Distributor, and The Consumer.We like the Consumer, obviously, since that's us.People usually like the Artist, too, because those are the guys that are actually producing the music.The problem is the Distributor.
We tend to think that the Distributor should either be working directly for the Artist, helping him get his message and his music out to the world, or for the Consumer, helping us find and purchase and own whatever music we want to hear.
Instead, the Distributor works for himself and his investors.
He sees this movement of music from the Artist to the Consumer and says, "How can I make money off that?
" Not, "How can I facilitate that," except to the point where facilitating makes him money.If the Distributor were a servant of either of the two parties, we'd be in much better shape.
With the power of the internet that's starting to happen in some cases, but the big labels and their associates are still part of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446214</id>
	<title>Re:Guess no music games then</title>
	<author>Snufu</author>
	<datestamp>1268309460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!</p></div><p>
But if you do, you win your very own giant inflatable pig signed by David Gilmour.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes , fucker !
But if you do , you win your very own giant inflatable pig signed by David Gilmour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Hope you can keep it up for 81 minutes, fucker!
But if you do, you win your very own giant inflatable pig signed by David Gilmour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</id>
	<title>Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268340180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't make any sense. Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't make any sense .
Pink Floyd 's music is meant to be listened to as a whole , albums are ( the good ones ) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't make any sense.
Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446984</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1268313540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>information has no desires and can't want to be free</p></div><p>And gases can't "want" to fill their containers, but when talking about the observed properties of gases, we anthropomorphize by describing the tendency as a "want." It's a rhetorical convention, not a conjecture that a gas is self-determining.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>information has no desires and ca n't want to be freeAnd gases ca n't " want " to fill their containers , but when talking about the observed properties of gases , we anthropomorphize by describing the tendency as a " want .
" It 's a rhetorical convention , not a conjecture that a gas is self-determining .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>information has no desires and can't want to be freeAnd gases can't "want" to fill their containers, but when talking about the observed properties of gases, we anthropomorphize by describing the tendency as a "want.
" It's a rhetorical convention, not a conjecture that a gas is self-determining.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443296</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268299140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's like asking why movies and books are divided into chapters. You can't understand chapter 13 without reading chapter 12. So, why bother dividing them into "stand alone" chapters?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like asking why movies and books are divided into chapters .
You ca n't understand chapter 13 without reading chapter 12 .
So , why bother dividing them into " stand alone " chapters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like asking why movies and books are divided into chapters.
You can't understand chapter 13 without reading chapter 12.
So, why bother dividing them into "stand alone" chapters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444114</id>
	<title>Four movements of Beethoven sold individually</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1268301540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement. Separately...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><ul> <li>Beethoven's fifth symphony, first movement, the one that uses the Morse code for "V" as its motif</li><li>Beethoven's ninth symphony, second movement, the one that starts with the theme from <i>Countdown with Keith Olbermann</i> </li><li>Beethoven's ninth symphony, fourth movement, containing "Ode to Joy"</li></ul><p>
Include concertos or sonatas and the list grows:
</p><ul> <li>Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, first movement</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement .
Separately... : ) Beethoven 's fifth symphony , first movement , the one that uses the Morse code for " V " as its motifBeethoven 's ninth symphony , second movement , the one that starts with the theme from Countdown with Keith Olbermann Beethoven 's ninth symphony , fourth movement , containing " Ode to Joy " Include concertos or sonatas and the list grows : Beethoven 's Moonlight Sonata , first movement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, think of all the symphonies that are sold by movement.
Separately... :) Beethoven's fifth symphony, first movement, the one that uses the Morse code for "V" as its motifBeethoven's ninth symphony, second movement, the one that starts with the theme from Countdown with Keith Olbermann Beethoven's ninth symphony, fourth movement, containing "Ode to Joy"
Include concertos or sonatas and the list grows:
 Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, first movement
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446590</id>
	<title>Re:Good for PF...but also...bad for PF?</title>
	<author>debrisslider</author>
	<datestamp>1268311440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For thematic organizing principles? As a meta-commentary on the contents? To establish a mood for the chapter? To shed light on the meaning of narrative events, or perhaps to ironically change perspective on them? To parody the structure of another book, or undermine a novel's own structure? For any number of perfectly valid, reasonable, and appropriate artistic reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with commercializing those portions? Chapter titles are as much a part of a coherent whole as any other part of the text, and though they often serve merely as linear indicators, plenty of writers have artistically meaningful chapter titles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For thematic organizing principles ?
As a meta-commentary on the contents ?
To establish a mood for the chapter ?
To shed light on the meaning of narrative events , or perhaps to ironically change perspective on them ?
To parody the structure of another book , or undermine a novel 's own structure ?
For any number of perfectly valid , reasonable , and appropriate artistic reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with commercializing those portions ?
Chapter titles are as much a part of a coherent whole as any other part of the text , and though they often serve merely as linear indicators , plenty of writers have artistically meaningful chapter titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For thematic organizing principles?
As a meta-commentary on the contents?
To establish a mood for the chapter?
To shed light on the meaning of narrative events, or perhaps to ironically change perspective on them?
To parody the structure of another book, or undermine a novel's own structure?
For any number of perfectly valid, reasonable, and appropriate artistic reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with commercializing those portions?
Chapter titles are as much a part of a coherent whole as any other part of the text, and though they often serve merely as linear indicators, plenty of writers have artistically meaningful chapter titles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445076</id>
	<title>Re:So, my guess is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268304780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what if SlashDot interprets this as a licensing issue?  We're all in favor of letting coders^Wartists release their work under whichever license they prefer, right?  I mean, we may each have our favorites, sure, but the freedom of the creator of a work to license that work as they desire is also a freedom position, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if SlashDot interprets this as a licensing issue ?
We 're all in favor of letting coders ^ Wartists release their work under whichever license they prefer , right ?
I mean , we may each have our favorites , sure , but the freedom of the creator of a work to license that work as they desire is also a freedom position , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if SlashDot interprets this as a licensing issue?
We're all in favor of letting coders^Wartists release their work under whichever license they prefer, right?
I mean, we may each have our favorites, sure, but the freedom of the creator of a work to license that work as they desire is also a freedom position, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447088</id>
	<title>Re:People seem to be missing the LARGER issue.</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1268314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the same principle that makes the GPL work. If you don't accept the author's restrictions on your distribution, then nothing else gives you a right to distribute.  That EMI thought they could get away with this argument reveals how used to screwing the artists the record companies have become.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same principle that makes the GPL work .
If you do n't accept the author 's restrictions on your distribution , then nothing else gives you a right to distribute .
That EMI thought they could get away with this argument reveals how used to screwing the artists the record companies have become .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same principle that makes the GPL work.
If you don't accept the author's restrictions on your distribution, then nothing else gives you a right to distribute.
That EMI thought they could get away with this argument reveals how used to screwing the artists the record companies have become.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444512</id>
	<title>Yay!</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1268302740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to hear it! I'm all for digital downloads, but I'm more for artists having control over how their music is distributed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to hear it !
I 'm all for digital downloads , but I 'm more for artists having control over how their music is distributed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to hear it!
I'm all for digital downloads, but I'm more for artists having control over how their music is distributed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443134</id>
	<title>Pink Floyd are the true masters at what they do</title>
	<author>l3v1</author>
	<datestamp>1268298660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for being able to buy tracks that we like, because a \_lot\_ of bands make really crappy albums with 1-2 good tracks. In Pink Floyd's case a lot of albums are made to be a whole, songs flowing into each other, by theme, by style, by meaning, and so on, some of their albums are really good, pieces of art in every sense of the word. Picking tracks one by one is still ok, for those who know the albums, even I listen to a lot of PF songs separately, but it's different than taking a random track from a random band, since I almost always can recall the album itself - I can't really put this into words, the best one I can find is that some of their albums truly provide a nice experience. If they ask some "song retailer" - as I like to call the likes of EMI - to keep the integrity of their creations, I'd honor that request, if not for anything else, then out of respect for what they've put on the table. We're not talking about some one-timer pop-group here, who were slapped together for a quick money tour then disappear into oblivion. I know it's all about profit, still, it's stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for being able to buy tracks that we like , because a \ _lot \ _ of bands make really crappy albums with 1-2 good tracks .
In Pink Floyd 's case a lot of albums are made to be a whole , songs flowing into each other , by theme , by style , by meaning , and so on , some of their albums are really good , pieces of art in every sense of the word .
Picking tracks one by one is still ok , for those who know the albums , even I listen to a lot of PF songs separately , but it 's different than taking a random track from a random band , since I almost always can recall the album itself - I ca n't really put this into words , the best one I can find is that some of their albums truly provide a nice experience .
If they ask some " song retailer " - as I like to call the likes of EMI - to keep the integrity of their creations , I 'd honor that request , if not for anything else , then out of respect for what they 've put on the table .
We 're not talking about some one-timer pop-group here , who were slapped together for a quick money tour then disappear into oblivion .
I know it 's all about profit , still , it 's stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for being able to buy tracks that we like, because a \_lot\_ of bands make really crappy albums with 1-2 good tracks.
In Pink Floyd's case a lot of albums are made to be a whole, songs flowing into each other, by theme, by style, by meaning, and so on, some of their albums are really good, pieces of art in every sense of the word.
Picking tracks one by one is still ok, for those who know the albums, even I listen to a lot of PF songs separately, but it's different than taking a random track from a random band, since I almost always can recall the album itself - I can't really put this into words, the best one I can find is that some of their albums truly provide a nice experience.
If they ask some "song retailer" - as I like to call the likes of EMI - to keep the integrity of their creations, I'd honor that request, if not for anything else, then out of respect for what they've put on the table.
We're not talking about some one-timer pop-group here, who were slapped together for a quick money tour then disappear into oblivion.
I know it's all about profit, still, it's stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442910</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>DWIM</author>
	<datestamp>1268298000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.</p></div><p>Except for the singles the band agreed to release, right?  You know, "Money," "Us and Them," "Have a cigar," "Wish You Were Here," "Another Brick in the Wall," etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pink Floyd 's music is meant to be listened to as a whole , albums are ( the good ones ) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.Except for the singles the band agreed to release , right ?
You know , " Money , " " Us and Them , " " Have a cigar , " " Wish You Were Here , " " Another Brick in the Wall , " etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pink Floyd's music is meant to be listened to as a whole, albums are (the good ones) carefully prepared and are one piece of music story.Except for the singles the band agreed to release, right?
You know, "Money," "Us and Them," "Have a cigar," "Wish You Were Here," "Another Brick in the Wall," etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444476</id>
	<title>So...how can they sell it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268302680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If EMI is going to argue that the contract only applied to physical albums, then by what was EMI claiming that they had the right to sell the songs online? Either the contract applies to everything and they did not have the right to sell individual tracks, or they did not have the right to sell the music online at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If EMI is going to argue that the contract only applied to physical albums , then by what was EMI claiming that they had the right to sell the songs online ?
Either the contract applies to everything and they did not have the right to sell individual tracks , or they did not have the right to sell the music online at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If EMI is going to argue that the contract only applied to physical albums, then by what was EMI claiming that they had the right to sell the songs online?
Either the contract applies to everything and they did not have the right to sell individual tracks, or they did not have the right to sell the music online at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448732</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>sapphire wyvern</author>
	<datestamp>1268330340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be great for classical music too. Concertos and symphonies should be heard as complete works, not as randomly selected movements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be great for classical music too .
Concertos and symphonies should be heard as complete works , not as randomly selected movements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be great for classical music too.
Concertos and symphonies should be heard as complete works, not as randomly selected movements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442752</id>
	<title>Re:This isn't about bundling...</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1268340780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...this is about a record label subverting a contract.  EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albums</p></div><p>Pink Floyd doesn't feel there's more money in album sales. They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...this is about a record label subverting a contract .
EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks , Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albumsPink Floyd does n't feel there 's more money in album sales .
They feel that they did n't make individual pieces , they made a whole , and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this is about a record label subverting a contract.
EMI clearly feels EMI will make more money by subverting the contract and selling tracks, Pink Floyd clearly feels Pink Floyd will make more money by selling entire albumsPink Floyd doesn't feel there's more money in album sales.
They feel that they didn't make individual pieces, they made a whole, and they feel that it should only be sold as a whole.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444304</id>
	<title>More about Royalties then Integrity I suspect..</title>
	<author>Pontiac</author>
	<datestamp>1268302080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article</p><p><i>The judge also ruled on a second issue, the level of royalties paid to the band. That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.</i></p><p>I suspect the real issue here was EMI paying a lower royalty fee for online salve vs a contract set rate for album sales.</p><p>Winning in this case puts Puck Floyd in the driver seat when it comes to negotiating a new online sales contract with EMI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the articleThe judge also ruled on a second issue , the level of royalties paid to the band .
That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.I suspect the real issue here was EMI paying a lower royalty fee for online salve vs a contract set rate for album sales.Winning in this case puts Puck Floyd in the driver seat when it comes to negotiating a new online sales contract with EMI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the articleThe judge also ruled on a second issue, the level of royalties paid to the band.
That section of the judgment was made in private after EMI argued the information was covered by commercial confidentiality.I suspect the real issue here was EMI paying a lower royalty fee for online salve vs a contract set rate for album sales.Winning in this case puts Puck Floyd in the driver seat when it comes to negotiating a new online sales contract with EMI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448756</id>
	<title>Hey EMI executives...</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1268330640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.<br>
Just like you did our albums.
</p><p>
Sincerely,
</p><p>
Roger, Nick, Syd (in spirit), Roger, and David, the fantastic band (you guess which one is Pink).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of these days I 'm going to cut you into little pieces.. . . Just like you did our albums .
Sincerely , Roger , Nick , Syd ( in spirit ) , Roger , and David , the fantastic band ( you guess which one is Pink ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces...
 .
Just like you did our albums.
Sincerely,

Roger, Nick, Syd (in spirit), Roger, and David, the fantastic band (you guess which one is Pink).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444622</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>GuldKalle</author>
	<datestamp>1268303160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few players have something a bit like this: Album shuffle. Where it plays one album from start to finish, then shuffles on to a new random album.</p><p>The only places I've seen that, though, is in <a href="http://foobar2000.com/" title="foobar2000.com">Foobar</a> [foobar2000.com] (win) and <a href="http://rockbox.org/" title="rockbox.org">Rockbox</a> [rockbox.org] (for iPod 5.5 and down, and a few other portable players)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few players have something a bit like this : Album shuffle .
Where it plays one album from start to finish , then shuffles on to a new random album.The only places I 've seen that , though , is in Foobar [ foobar2000.com ] ( win ) and Rockbox [ rockbox.org ] ( for iPod 5.5 and down , and a few other portable players )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few players have something a bit like this: Album shuffle.
Where it plays one album from start to finish, then shuffles on to a new random album.The only places I've seen that, though, is in Foobar [foobar2000.com] (win) and Rockbox [rockbox.org] (for iPod 5.5 and down, and a few other portable players)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447180</id>
	<title>Re:Because selling "Shine on you crazy diamond IV"</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268314800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And again: exhibit to the contrary, commercial radio.</p><p>If we had never heard hear 'Another Brick In The Wall Part II' standing on its own played ad nauseum, Pink Floyd would have an argument. But, well. They didn't stick up for their 'artistic integrity' then did they?</p><p>We've already heard single tracks cut out of context from Floyd albums. Shock horror!<i>The world didn't end!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And again : exhibit to the contrary , commercial radio.If we had never heard hear 'Another Brick In The Wall Part II ' standing on its own played ad nauseum , Pink Floyd would have an argument .
But , well .
They did n't stick up for their 'artistic integrity ' then did they ? We 've already heard single tracks cut out of context from Floyd albums .
Shock horror ! The world did n't end !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And again: exhibit to the contrary, commercial radio.If we had never heard hear 'Another Brick In The Wall Part II' standing on its own played ad nauseum, Pink Floyd would have an argument.
But, well.
They didn't stick up for their 'artistic integrity' then did they?We've already heard single tracks cut out of context from Floyd albums.
Shock horror!The world didn't end!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31449020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31451794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31454138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31458402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31461334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_11_1846211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31461334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443138
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444276
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448290
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31458402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447196
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443352
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31449020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31448852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31451794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31442778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31444662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31485474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31450898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31446548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31445580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31447228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_11_1846211.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31443720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_11_1846211.31454138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
