<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_27_0356211</id>
	<title>The Times Erects a Paywall, Plays Double Or Quits</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269682920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DCFC writes <i>"News International, owners of The Times and The Sunday Times announced today that from June readers will be <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8588432.stm">required to pay &pound;1 per day or &pound;2 per week to access content</a>. Rupert Murdoch is delivering on his threat to make readers pay, and is trying out this experiment with the most important titles  in his portfolio. No one knows if this will work &mdash;  there is no consensus on whether it is a good or bad thing for the industry, but be very clear that if it succeeds every one of his competitors will follow. Murdoch has the luxury of a deep and wide business, so he can push this harder than any company that has to rely upon one or two titles for revenue."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DCFC writes " News International , owners of The Times and The Sunday Times announced today that from June readers will be required to pay   1 per day or   2 per week to access content .
Rupert Murdoch is delivering on his threat to make readers pay , and is trying out this experiment with the most important titles in his portfolio .
No one knows if this will work    there is no consensus on whether it is a good or bad thing for the industry , but be very clear that if it succeeds every one of his competitors will follow .
Murdoch has the luxury of a deep and wide business , so he can push this harder than any company that has to rely upon one or two titles for revenue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DCFC writes "News International, owners of The Times and The Sunday Times announced today that from June readers will be required to pay £1 per day or £2 per week to access content.
Rupert Murdoch is delivering on his threat to make readers pay, and is trying out this experiment with the most important titles  in his portfolio.
No one knows if this will work —  there is no consensus on whether it is a good or bad thing for the industry, but be very clear that if it succeeds every one of his competitors will follow.
Murdoch has the luxury of a deep and wide business, so he can push this harder than any company that has to rely upon one or two titles for revenue.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638194</id>
	<title>Don't underestimate them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269689820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People underestimate Murdoch at their peril. He isn't an idiot, even if he did invest in MySpace. This will work, unfortunately.</p><p>He isn't expecting people to pay &pound;1/day or &pound;2/week for the content that is available right now on timesonline.co.uk; they've recognised that they're going to need to offer something that no other free news source can. If by subscribing I get to ask questions in a live Q&amp;A with, say, political analysts or MPs (or whoever, idk...) and also access to whatever else they happen to have lined up, then that is something a lot of people in their target readership are likely to go for. The success of this will be decided on the quality and *perceived* value of the extra content.</p><p>Interestingly, the same thing is happening with the Sun and News of the World sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People underestimate Murdoch at their peril .
He is n't an idiot , even if he did invest in MySpace .
This will work , unfortunately.He is n't expecting people to pay   1/day or   2/week for the content that is available right now on timesonline.co.uk ; they 've recognised that they 're going to need to offer something that no other free news source can .
If by subscribing I get to ask questions in a live Q&amp;A with , say , political analysts or MPs ( or whoever , idk... ) and also access to whatever else they happen to have lined up , then that is something a lot of people in their target readership are likely to go for .
The success of this will be decided on the quality and * perceived * value of the extra content.Interestingly , the same thing is happening with the Sun and News of the World sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People underestimate Murdoch at their peril.
He isn't an idiot, even if he did invest in MySpace.
This will work, unfortunately.He isn't expecting people to pay £1/day or £2/week for the content that is available right now on timesonline.co.uk; they've recognised that they're going to need to offer something that no other free news source can.
If by subscribing I get to ask questions in a live Q&amp;A with, say, political analysts or MPs (or whoever, idk...) and also access to whatever else they happen to have lined up, then that is something a lot of people in their target readership are likely to go for.
The success of this will be decided on the quality and *perceived* value of the extra content.Interestingly, the same thing is happening with the Sun and News of the World sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638410</id>
	<title>The market pays what a service is worth.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269692940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The free market is brutally efficient.  In this market, the price of a good or service is determined by what it is worth.
<p>
For example, the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has excellent reporting and analysis.  The WSJ is worth the price that its owners charge, so I willingly pay for a 1-year subscription to the WSJ.
</p><p>
Is "The Times" worth 1 pound per day?  Only the market can say for sure.
</p><p>
An interesting but indirect conclusion of my observation is that if a newspaper is so rotten that only free content will attract readers, then the reporters and the editors of that rotten newspaper are being overpaid for the crappy work that they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The free market is brutally efficient .
In this market , the price of a good or service is determined by what it is worth .
For example , the " Wall Street Journal " ( WSJ ) has excellent reporting and analysis .
The WSJ is worth the price that its owners charge , so I willingly pay for a 1-year subscription to the WSJ .
Is " The Times " worth 1 pound per day ?
Only the market can say for sure .
An interesting but indirect conclusion of my observation is that if a newspaper is so rotten that only free content will attract readers , then the reporters and the editors of that rotten newspaper are being overpaid for the crappy work that they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The free market is brutally efficient.
In this market, the price of a good or service is determined by what it is worth.
For example, the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has excellent reporting and analysis.
The WSJ is worth the price that its owners charge, so I willingly pay for a 1-year subscription to the WSJ.
Is "The Times" worth 1 pound per day?
Only the market can say for sure.
An interesting but indirect conclusion of my observation is that if a newspaper is so rotten that only free content will attract readers, then the reporters and the editors of that rotten newspaper are being overpaid for the crappy work that they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638170</id>
	<title>I'll miss the Letters page (but little else)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269689520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be annoying to lose access to the letters page (and make it even less likely that I'll ever get a letter published there), but I won't be paying 100 quid a year and I'll be "wasting" 5 minutes less each day reading that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be annoying to lose access to the letters page ( and make it even less likely that I 'll ever get a letter published there ) , but I wo n't be paying 100 quid a year and I 'll be " wasting " 5 minutes less each day reading that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be annoying to lose access to the letters page (and make it even less likely that I'll ever get a letter published there), but I won't be paying 100 quid a year and I'll be "wasting" 5 minutes less each day reading that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640922</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>dgriff</author>
	<datestamp>1269714900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you'll find that the Guardian will be secretly hoping that Murdoch leads the way. As this <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/05/google-internet-piracy" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Henry Porter</a> [guardian.co.uk] article demonstrates (and which was reflected elsewhere in the paper last year) there is a lot of unhappiness with the way people like Google can repackage their content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that the Guardian will be secretly hoping that Murdoch leads the way .
As this Henry Porter [ guardian.co.uk ] article demonstrates ( and which was reflected elsewhere in the paper last year ) there is a lot of unhappiness with the way people like Google can repackage their content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that the Guardian will be secretly hoping that Murdoch leads the way.
As this Henry Porter [guardian.co.uk] article demonstrates (and which was reflected elsewhere in the paper last year) there is a lot of unhappiness with the way people like Google can repackage their content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269691380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guardian? Don't make me laugh! They are probably the least objective newspaper in the UK.
They have a huge agenda of pushing public services and the taxes to pay for them</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guardian ?
Do n't make me laugh !
They are probably the least objective newspaper in the UK .
They have a huge agenda of pushing public services and the taxes to pay for them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guardian?
Don't make me laugh!
They are probably the least objective newspaper in the UK.
They have a huge agenda of pushing public services and the taxes to pay for them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638952</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>dwandy</author>
	<datestamp>1269699960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You may not like paying for your news, in the end someone has to pay for it...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Historically all we (consumers) paid for was the paper, ink and delivery. The content was paid for by advertising revenue - this hasn't changed: we pay the ISP for the delivery and it's electric ink and paper.<br>
There is no reason why we can't continue to get all our news in this model. Indefinitely.</p><blockquote><div><p>The current business model is not maintainable, everyone is losing. Most of all the readers, who are more and more getting the exact same news from any paper</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is the important bit. It made sense to have a <i>YourTown Gazette</i> in the paper world that carried all the world's news. It made no sense in the paper era to have only a few papers printed and shipped all over. Yet even in the paper era AP and Reuters sprang up to fill the need that <i>YourTown Gazette</i> can't have a reporter in every location on earth. And the internet amplifies this. There are simply too many redundant entities trying to deliver the same information and each paying a staff to do this. It is, as you have stated, not sustainable.<br>
For international news there needs to be only a few agencies that report the same thing. These can easily be sustained by ad revenues: Google is proof of this. Local news will take a hit; I don't see some communities having the resources or draw to have "professional" news reporting, and maybe that's a good thing. Community driven news will spring up: blogs etc to cover the local issues and those that are interested in the local news will read and contribute. Think Open Source News. It's the communities, discussions and interactions that matter as much as the events.</p><p>
My prediction is that like all paywalls before, this one will fail to generate any meaningful revenue, but will hopefully begin to shake-out the industry into something sustainable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not like paying for your news , in the end someone has to pay for it.. . Historically all we ( consumers ) paid for was the paper , ink and delivery .
The content was paid for by advertising revenue - this has n't changed : we pay the ISP for the delivery and it 's electric ink and paper .
There is no reason why we ca n't continue to get all our news in this model .
Indefinitely.The current business model is not maintainable , everyone is losing .
Most of all the readers , who are more and more getting the exact same news from any paper This is the important bit .
It made sense to have a YourTown Gazette in the paper world that carried all the world 's news .
It made no sense in the paper era to have only a few papers printed and shipped all over .
Yet even in the paper era AP and Reuters sprang up to fill the need that YourTown Gazette ca n't have a reporter in every location on earth .
And the internet amplifies this .
There are simply too many redundant entities trying to deliver the same information and each paying a staff to do this .
It is , as you have stated , not sustainable .
For international news there needs to be only a few agencies that report the same thing .
These can easily be sustained by ad revenues : Google is proof of this .
Local news will take a hit ; I do n't see some communities having the resources or draw to have " professional " news reporting , and maybe that 's a good thing .
Community driven news will spring up : blogs etc to cover the local issues and those that are interested in the local news will read and contribute .
Think Open Source News .
It 's the communities , discussions and interactions that matter as much as the events .
My prediction is that like all paywalls before , this one will fail to generate any meaningful revenue , but will hopefully begin to shake-out the industry into something sustainable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not like paying for your news, in the end someone has to pay for it...
Historically all we (consumers) paid for was the paper, ink and delivery.
The content was paid for by advertising revenue - this hasn't changed: we pay the ISP for the delivery and it's electric ink and paper.
There is no reason why we can't continue to get all our news in this model.
Indefinitely.The current business model is not maintainable, everyone is losing.
Most of all the readers, who are more and more getting the exact same news from any paper
This is the important bit.
It made sense to have a YourTown Gazette in the paper world that carried all the world's news.
It made no sense in the paper era to have only a few papers printed and shipped all over.
Yet even in the paper era AP and Reuters sprang up to fill the need that YourTown Gazette can't have a reporter in every location on earth.
And the internet amplifies this.
There are simply too many redundant entities trying to deliver the same information and each paying a staff to do this.
It is, as you have stated, not sustainable.
For international news there needs to be only a few agencies that report the same thing.
These can easily be sustained by ad revenues: Google is proof of this.
Local news will take a hit; I don't see some communities having the resources or draw to have "professional" news reporting, and maybe that's a good thing.
Community driven news will spring up: blogs etc to cover the local issues and those that are interested in the local news will read and contribute.
Think Open Source News.
It's the communities, discussions and interactions that matter as much as the events.
My prediction is that like all paywalls before, this one will fail to generate any meaningful revenue, but will hopefully begin to shake-out the industry into something sustainable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31651178</id>
	<title>This may come to be in the US but...</title>
	<author>phlegmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269776640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>he will find that he will get a cricket bat to the face if he tries it in the UK, Australia, New Zealand or any other country that is more sensibly governed that the US.<br> <br>

I am hoping this will cause his whole media empire to crash and burn. That way we won't have to put up with his demeted, corrupt, senile twist on the news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>he will find that he will get a cricket bat to the face if he tries it in the UK , Australia , New Zealand or any other country that is more sensibly governed that the US .
I am hoping this will cause his whole media empire to crash and burn .
That way we wo n't have to put up with his demeted , corrupt , senile twist on the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he will find that he will get a cricket bat to the face if he tries it in the UK, Australia, New Zealand or any other country that is more sensibly governed that the US.
I am hoping this will cause his whole media empire to crash and burn.
That way we won't have to put up with his demeted, corrupt, senile twist on the news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641320</id>
	<title>Let this failure be the example</title>
	<author>actionbastard</author>
	<datestamp>1269717360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.newsday.com/" title="newsday.com">Newsday</a> [newsday.com]
<br> <br>
<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/27/1345219" title="slashdot.org">Newsday Gets 35 Subscriptions To Pay Web Site</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newsday [ newsday.com ] Newsday Gets 35 Subscriptions To Pay Web Site [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newsday [newsday.com]
 
Newsday Gets 35 Subscriptions To Pay Web Site [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640626</id>
	<title>Lessons from Playing Poker</title>
	<author>thebian</author>
	<datestamp>1269712740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Years ago, I played poker and I found it was much easier to win when you were way ahead of everybody. You could outlast anyone. You can do all sorts of things when the others are at the brink.</p><p>I can't believe how these great publishers, billionaires at the top of the social heap, are so dumb that the strongest of them are so anxious to risk it all. Aren't they captains of industry? Don't they want to squeeze out the competition?</p><p>I believe that Murdoch and the NY Times (which will do this in a few months) will fail miserably and ruin their franchises. In the unlikely event that they succeed, they will just be leading the way for all the little guys, and their industry will be able to resume its slow fade.</p><p>What they do isn't worth &pound;1 a day, or &pound;2 a week, to many people. There's too much competition in news. Aggregators didn't invent copying -- newspapers did it first and continue to rewrite each other with abandon. But that does <em>not</em> mean they can be replaced by bloggers. It's too bad. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Years ago , I played poker and I found it was much easier to win when you were way ahead of everybody .
You could outlast anyone .
You can do all sorts of things when the others are at the brink.I ca n't believe how these great publishers , billionaires at the top of the social heap , are so dumb that the strongest of them are so anxious to risk it all .
Are n't they captains of industry ?
Do n't they want to squeeze out the competition ? I believe that Murdoch and the NY Times ( which will do this in a few months ) will fail miserably and ruin their franchises .
In the unlikely event that they succeed , they will just be leading the way for all the little guys , and their industry will be able to resume its slow fade.What they do is n't worth   1 a day , or   2 a week , to many people .
There 's too much competition in news .
Aggregators did n't invent copying -- newspapers did it first and continue to rewrite each other with abandon .
But that does not mean they can be replaced by bloggers .
It 's too bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Years ago, I played poker and I found it was much easier to win when you were way ahead of everybody.
You could outlast anyone.
You can do all sorts of things when the others are at the brink.I can't believe how these great publishers, billionaires at the top of the social heap, are so dumb that the strongest of them are so anxious to risk it all.
Aren't they captains of industry?
Don't they want to squeeze out the competition?I believe that Murdoch and the NY Times (which will do this in a few months) will fail miserably and ruin their franchises.
In the unlikely event that they succeed, they will just be leading the way for all the little guys, and their industry will be able to resume its slow fade.What they do isn't worth £1 a day, or £2 a week, to many people.
There's too much competition in news.
Aggregators didn't invent copying -- newspapers did it first and continue to rewrite each other with abandon.
But that does not mean they can be replaced by bloggers.
It's too bad. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638340</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1269692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC the Grauniad is losing money hand over fist.  Believe me, if this works they'll be next on the bandwagon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC the Grauniad is losing money hand over fist .
Believe me , if this works they 'll be next on the bandwagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC the Grauniad is losing money hand over fist.
Believe me, if this works they'll be next on the bandwagon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638012</id>
	<title>OMG</title>
	<author>GC</author>
	<datestamp>1269687360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that anyone will necessarily listen to me, though obviously they must be listening to Rupert.</p><p>I have not bought a newspaper, watched Sky (for anything other than football) for the best part of seven years. Why the hell do they think that I might get my credit card out in order to listen what they have to say, they should pay me for the benefit of listening to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that anyone will necessarily listen to me , though obviously they must be listening to Rupert.I have not bought a newspaper , watched Sky ( for anything other than football ) for the best part of seven years .
Why the hell do they think that I might get my credit card out in order to listen what they have to say , they should pay me for the benefit of listening to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that anyone will necessarily listen to me, though obviously they must be listening to Rupert.I have not bought a newspaper, watched Sky (for anything other than football) for the best part of seven years.
Why the hell do they think that I might get my credit card out in order to listen what they have to say, they should pay me for the benefit of listening to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638086</id>
	<title>If only...</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1269688080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish Murdoch would charge us &pound;1 per time we want to hear him speak. We'd thankfully have the man silenced forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Murdoch would charge us   1 per time we want to hear him speak .
We 'd thankfully have the man silenced forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish Murdoch would charge us £1 per time we want to hear him speak.
We'd thankfully have the man silenced forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31645880</id>
	<title>Ironically</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1269766800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't mind at all paying the BBC (I live outside the UK) up to $50/year for access.</p><p>Why? Because I respect them, and they have tons of content all over their site I often want to view. In other words, they offer good journalism and content, unlike Murdoch and other newspapers where I only ever would read one article now and then, and only because it was linked to from an oft-used aggregate site like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>However, like others have said, if I had to pay *more than one* subscription, suddenly it's too expensive. So this whole plan fails from the start, unless perhaps it's like $5 per year per site, then I can subscribe to a handful.</p><p>Thing is, Murdoch complains that the BBC's out there are ruining his business model, but they were *already there* when he started his online business. That was always the landscape and he knew it. He's a nasty hypocrite and he can go choke on it.</p><p>Murdoch always knew he was competing with Free. Maybe he's just not as smart as Google, Facebook, etc. who have managed to make money out of Free. If Murdoch is competing for the advertising dollar, then maybe he's competing more with THEM than with the BBCs of the world.  Not because Google "steals news", but because they're stealing his *advertising clients*.</p><p>Online newspapers can't deliver targeted ads based even on reader demographics, let alone buying habits, browsing habits, email &amp; feed keywords of them and their social circle, etc. So who are *advertisers* going to go for? Google &amp; Facebook or traditional no-specific-audience newspaper sites?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind at all paying the BBC ( I live outside the UK ) up to $ 50/year for access.Why ?
Because I respect them , and they have tons of content all over their site I often want to view .
In other words , they offer good journalism and content , unlike Murdoch and other newspapers where I only ever would read one article now and then , and only because it was linked to from an oft-used aggregate site like /.However , like others have said , if I had to pay * more than one * subscription , suddenly it 's too expensive .
So this whole plan fails from the start , unless perhaps it 's like $ 5 per year per site , then I can subscribe to a handful.Thing is , Murdoch complains that the BBC 's out there are ruining his business model , but they were * already there * when he started his online business .
That was always the landscape and he knew it .
He 's a nasty hypocrite and he can go choke on it.Murdoch always knew he was competing with Free .
Maybe he 's just not as smart as Google , Facebook , etc .
who have managed to make money out of Free .
If Murdoch is competing for the advertising dollar , then maybe he 's competing more with THEM than with the BBCs of the world .
Not because Google " steals news " , but because they 're stealing his * advertising clients * .Online newspapers ca n't deliver targeted ads based even on reader demographics , let alone buying habits , browsing habits , email &amp; feed keywords of them and their social circle , etc .
So who are * advertisers * going to go for ?
Google &amp; Facebook or traditional no-specific-audience newspaper sites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind at all paying the BBC (I live outside the UK) up to $50/year for access.Why?
Because I respect them, and they have tons of content all over their site I often want to view.
In other words, they offer good journalism and content, unlike Murdoch and other newspapers where I only ever would read one article now and then, and only because it was linked to from an oft-used aggregate site like /.However, like others have said, if I had to pay *more than one* subscription, suddenly it's too expensive.
So this whole plan fails from the start, unless perhaps it's like $5 per year per site, then I can subscribe to a handful.Thing is, Murdoch complains that the BBC's out there are ruining his business model, but they were *already there* when he started his online business.
That was always the landscape and he knew it.
He's a nasty hypocrite and he can go choke on it.Murdoch always knew he was competing with Free.
Maybe he's just not as smart as Google, Facebook, etc.
who have managed to make money out of Free.
If Murdoch is competing for the advertising dollar, then maybe he's competing more with THEM than with the BBCs of the world.
Not because Google "steals news", but because they're stealing his *advertising clients*.Online newspapers can't deliver targeted ads based even on reader demographics, let alone buying habits, browsing habits, email &amp; feed keywords of them and their social circle, etc.
So who are *advertisers* going to go for?
Google &amp; Facebook or traditional no-specific-audience newspaper sites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</id>
	<title>5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1269688680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's hinted in the article -- and I've seen it elsewhere -- that if they retain 5\% of their current online readership, that counts as a win.</p><p>That's a small enough number that my instinct ("Nobody'll pay for it") doesn't feel all that reliable.</p><p>Is it just about <i>possible</i> that 5\% will pay? I think it's unlikely, but not completely impossible. It'll be interesting to see, that's for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hinted in the article -- and I 've seen it elsewhere -- that if they retain 5 \ % of their current online readership , that counts as a win.That 's a small enough number that my instinct ( " Nobody 'll pay for it " ) does n't feel all that reliable.Is it just about possible that 5 \ % will pay ?
I think it 's unlikely , but not completely impossible .
It 'll be interesting to see , that 's for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hinted in the article -- and I've seen it elsewhere -- that if they retain 5\% of their current online readership, that counts as a win.That's a small enough number that my instinct ("Nobody'll pay for it") doesn't feel all that reliable.Is it just about possible that 5\% will pay?
I think it's unlikely, but not completely impossible.
It'll be interesting to see, that's for sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639874</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>mxs</author>
	<datestamp>1269708420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your conclusion is incorrect. I may not like paying for Murdoch's news, and in the end he will have to close shop.</p><p>The tongue-in-cheek comments of other posters here are spot on. The world is a better place without his rags out there. Now if only we could get Fox to erect a paywall around their TV station (Tea-Wall ?), and other low-life rags and outlets lose their funding, we might be getting somewhere.</p><p>I would welcome a way to preserve actual journalism, or rather to give it a proper financial footing, though. But not at the expense of carrying Murdoch-"News" through with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your conclusion is incorrect .
I may not like paying for Murdoch 's news , and in the end he will have to close shop.The tongue-in-cheek comments of other posters here are spot on .
The world is a better place without his rags out there .
Now if only we could get Fox to erect a paywall around their TV station ( Tea-Wall ?
) , and other low-life rags and outlets lose their funding , we might be getting somewhere.I would welcome a way to preserve actual journalism , or rather to give it a proper financial footing , though .
But not at the expense of carrying Murdoch- " News " through with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your conclusion is incorrect.
I may not like paying for Murdoch's news, and in the end he will have to close shop.The tongue-in-cheek comments of other posters here are spot on.
The world is a better place without his rags out there.
Now if only we could get Fox to erect a paywall around their TV station (Tea-Wall ?
), and other low-life rags and outlets lose their funding, we might be getting somewhere.I would welcome a way to preserve actual journalism, or rather to give it a proper financial footing, though.
But not at the expense of carrying Murdoch-"News" through with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638508</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>DangerFace</author>
	<datestamp>1269694380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem from a business perspective, as I see it, is that as more online news sources put up paywalls, the more incentive there is not to have one. I mean, if there's only one news source on the entire internet that you don't have to pay to see then they will get the vast, vast majority of page clicks, even if the journalism is crap. They've been saying for a while that the barrier to news site paywalls is that if they don't all do it at the same time then the early adopters are screwed - maybe that has a deeper message than just everyone doing it at the same time?</p><p>To be honest, there are one hell of a lot of people providing news, and only a limited amount of money that's going to flow into them. If this was any other business half of these guys would have gone bankrupt long ago, but as the parent talks about the news 'sources' get significant funding from rich people with viewpoints they want pushing, rather than trying to make actual profit. To be honest I hope Murdoch does paywall all his sites - they'll get dropped from aggregation sites, people won't link to them, and for all intents and purposes his influence will be removed from my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem from a business perspective , as I see it , is that as more online news sources put up paywalls , the more incentive there is not to have one .
I mean , if there 's only one news source on the entire internet that you do n't have to pay to see then they will get the vast , vast majority of page clicks , even if the journalism is crap .
They 've been saying for a while that the barrier to news site paywalls is that if they do n't all do it at the same time then the early adopters are screwed - maybe that has a deeper message than just everyone doing it at the same time ? To be honest , there are one hell of a lot of people providing news , and only a limited amount of money that 's going to flow into them .
If this was any other business half of these guys would have gone bankrupt long ago , but as the parent talks about the news 'sources ' get significant funding from rich people with viewpoints they want pushing , rather than trying to make actual profit .
To be honest I hope Murdoch does paywall all his sites - they 'll get dropped from aggregation sites , people wo n't link to them , and for all intents and purposes his influence will be removed from my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem from a business perspective, as I see it, is that as more online news sources put up paywalls, the more incentive there is not to have one.
I mean, if there's only one news source on the entire internet that you don't have to pay to see then they will get the vast, vast majority of page clicks, even if the journalism is crap.
They've been saying for a while that the barrier to news site paywalls is that if they don't all do it at the same time then the early adopters are screwed - maybe that has a deeper message than just everyone doing it at the same time?To be honest, there are one hell of a lot of people providing news, and only a limited amount of money that's going to flow into them.
If this was any other business half of these guys would have gone bankrupt long ago, but as the parent talks about the news 'sources' get significant funding from rich people with viewpoints they want pushing, rather than trying to make actual profit.
To be honest I hope Murdoch does paywall all his sites - they'll get dropped from aggregation sites, people won't link to them, and for all intents and purposes his influence will be removed from my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642338</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1269681960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure that Murdoch would take advertising dollars ahead of kudos for quality reporting. I'm not sure I'd blame him either. if this is a profitable model for him he should go for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that Murdoch would take advertising dollars ahead of kudos for quality reporting .
I 'm not sure I 'd blame him either .
if this is a profitable model for him he should go for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that Murdoch would take advertising dollars ahead of kudos for quality reporting.
I'm not sure I'd blame him either.
if this is a profitable model for him he should go for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638256</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, if instead of calling them "newspapers" they name their product "News ringtone" or "iPhone News App", then they can expect millions of units to sell for &pound;1 each.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if instead of calling them " newspapers " they name their product " News ringtone " or " iPhone News App " , then they can expect millions of units to sell for   1 each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if instead of calling them "newspapers" they name their product "News ringtone" or "iPhone News App", then they can expect millions of units to sell for £1 each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638530</id>
	<title>Make them pay for the Sun/Mail</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1269694620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really hope that the Sun (and daily mail) takes up this idea, just think how much nicer the internet would be with the racist, right wing bile that's shat out of their paper every single day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope that the Sun ( and daily mail ) takes up this idea , just think how much nicer the internet would be with the racist , right wing bile that 's shat out of their paper every single day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope that the Sun (and daily mail) takes up this idea, just think how much nicer the internet would be with the racist, right wing bile that's shat out of their paper every single day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639038</id>
	<title>Every paper has its bias</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1269700800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all due respect I think you're either naive, a troll, or working for The Guardian. Every paper has their bias. People just choose to read papers (and other media sources) that are closest to their biases. Newspapers make summaries of the news in the world therefore they make choices about what to present therefore a bias will be present as it is people, not some fantastic purely objective machine, making those selections. There are no objective selections.</p><p>A wiser approach is to understand that all news is biased and take into account the specific bias of the resource you're using, perhaps triangulate with other resources (i.e. read a couple of different papers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect I think you 're either naive , a troll , or working for The Guardian .
Every paper has their bias .
People just choose to read papers ( and other media sources ) that are closest to their biases .
Newspapers make summaries of the news in the world therefore they make choices about what to present therefore a bias will be present as it is people , not some fantastic purely objective machine , making those selections .
There are no objective selections.A wiser approach is to understand that all news is biased and take into account the specific bias of the resource you 're using , perhaps triangulate with other resources ( i.e .
read a couple of different papers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect I think you're either naive, a troll, or working for The Guardian.
Every paper has their bias.
People just choose to read papers (and other media sources) that are closest to their biases.
Newspapers make summaries of the news in the world therefore they make choices about what to present therefore a bias will be present as it is people, not some fantastic purely objective machine, making those selections.
There are no objective selections.A wiser approach is to understand that all news is biased and take into account the specific bias of the resource you're using, perhaps triangulate with other resources (i.e.
read a couple of different papers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</id>
	<title>From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>Simonetta</author>
	<datestamp>1269690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charging a pound a day to read news is ill-advised.  It will transform this man's newspaper from being the anchor media of the community to being just another website for the rich and their wack-job worshipers.</p><p>Newspapers a hundred-years ago were the voice and rallying point of the many diverse communities in the USA and the voice of the middle class in Europe.  There were many and each had strong and opposing editorial positions.  After World War II the newspapers consolidated into a few major corporations and greatly softened their strident editorial positions.  They started to become focused on local advertising, legal announcements, and providing a printed 'voice of record' for centralized government and corporate positions and viewpoints.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In the 1980s multiple papers and editions in cities disappeared.  Most major cities had only one daily and one 'alternative' weekly for young adults.  At the millennium, the function of providing news and advertisements started being done by the web and newspapers began to be perceived as irrelevant.  A large number of people born after WWII hated their local established daily because the ultra-conservative editorial board would always take the wrong position on every single issue, year after year.  Other middle-of-the-road young people found little in the daily that was useful to their lives.  One by one, they stopped buying the local paper as the years went by.  Editions of major city papers, NY Times, Washington Post, started being published in minor cities.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The wealthy loved the daily paper.  They were deluded into believing that the conservative editorial positions were a manifestation of the political views of the people and not a paid reflection of their own perspectives.  They poured millions into the dailys, year after year.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Then a few years ago, a tipping point happened.  The amount of money coming in didn't pay the costs of the dailys.  The papers went 'thin', losing 50-70\% of their daily newsprint and concentrated on food ads, kittens-stuck-in-trees human-interest stories, obituaries, and comics.  The young get the functions of a daily paper from the web and cable TV.  The old feel just lost and the middle class/aged just don't care as long as the SUV still runs.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The global newspaper kings should make their news outlets and web sites free.  The sources that they use to get the information are more interested in getting their positions out to the international public than they are interested in selling stories to newspapers.  They will use focused web sites.  Centralized 'journalism' will wither and just become a forgotten cultural characteristic of the 20th century.  Murdock appears to be too old, too isolated, and too rich to understand this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charging a pound a day to read news is ill-advised .
It will transform this man 's newspaper from being the anchor media of the community to being just another website for the rich and their wack-job worshipers.Newspapers a hundred-years ago were the voice and rallying point of the many diverse communities in the USA and the voice of the middle class in Europe .
There were many and each had strong and opposing editorial positions .
After World War II the newspapers consolidated into a few major corporations and greatly softened their strident editorial positions .
They started to become focused on local advertising , legal announcements , and providing a printed 'voice of record ' for centralized government and corporate positions and viewpoints .
    In the 1980s multiple papers and editions in cities disappeared .
Most major cities had only one daily and one 'alternative ' weekly for young adults .
At the millennium , the function of providing news and advertisements started being done by the web and newspapers began to be perceived as irrelevant .
A large number of people born after WWII hated their local established daily because the ultra-conservative editorial board would always take the wrong position on every single issue , year after year .
Other middle-of-the-road young people found little in the daily that was useful to their lives .
One by one , they stopped buying the local paper as the years went by .
Editions of major city papers , NY Times , Washington Post , started being published in minor cities .
    The wealthy loved the daily paper .
They were deluded into believing that the conservative editorial positions were a manifestation of the political views of the people and not a paid reflection of their own perspectives .
They poured millions into the dailys , year after year .
    Then a few years ago , a tipping point happened .
The amount of money coming in did n't pay the costs of the dailys .
The papers went 'thin ' , losing 50-70 \ % of their daily newsprint and concentrated on food ads , kittens-stuck-in-trees human-interest stories , obituaries , and comics .
The young get the functions of a daily paper from the web and cable TV .
The old feel just lost and the middle class/aged just do n't care as long as the SUV still runs .
    The global newspaper kings should make their news outlets and web sites free .
The sources that they use to get the information are more interested in getting their positions out to the international public than they are interested in selling stories to newspapers .
They will use focused web sites .
Centralized 'journalism ' will wither and just become a forgotten cultural characteristic of the 20th century .
Murdock appears to be too old , too isolated , and too rich to understand this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charging a pound a day to read news is ill-advised.
It will transform this man's newspaper from being the anchor media of the community to being just another website for the rich and their wack-job worshipers.Newspapers a hundred-years ago were the voice and rallying point of the many diverse communities in the USA and the voice of the middle class in Europe.
There were many and each had strong and opposing editorial positions.
After World War II the newspapers consolidated into a few major corporations and greatly softened their strident editorial positions.
They started to become focused on local advertising, legal announcements, and providing a printed 'voice of record' for centralized government and corporate positions and viewpoints.
    In the 1980s multiple papers and editions in cities disappeared.
Most major cities had only one daily and one 'alternative' weekly for young adults.
At the millennium, the function of providing news and advertisements started being done by the web and newspapers began to be perceived as irrelevant.
A large number of people born after WWII hated their local established daily because the ultra-conservative editorial board would always take the wrong position on every single issue, year after year.
Other middle-of-the-road young people found little in the daily that was useful to their lives.
One by one, they stopped buying the local paper as the years went by.
Editions of major city papers, NY Times, Washington Post, started being published in minor cities.
    The wealthy loved the daily paper.
They were deluded into believing that the conservative editorial positions were a manifestation of the political views of the people and not a paid reflection of their own perspectives.
They poured millions into the dailys, year after year.
    Then a few years ago, a tipping point happened.
The amount of money coming in didn't pay the costs of the dailys.
The papers went 'thin', losing 50-70\% of their daily newsprint and concentrated on food ads, kittens-stuck-in-trees human-interest stories, obituaries, and comics.
The young get the functions of a daily paper from the web and cable TV.
The old feel just lost and the middle class/aged just don't care as long as the SUV still runs.
    The global newspaper kings should make their news outlets and web sites free.
The sources that they use to get the information are more interested in getting their positions out to the international public than they are interested in selling stories to newspapers.
They will use focused web sites.
Centralized 'journalism' will wither and just become a forgotten cultural characteristic of the 20th century.
Murdock appears to be too old, too isolated, and too rich to understand this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639178</id>
	<title>Why do you have to sell what you make?</title>
	<author>DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly</author>
	<datestamp>1269702600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing about the internet is that you don't have to sell what you make. Monetising the web isn't just about selling the digital content you create, that's too simple and quite frankly, outdated. If you have a news site that has a lot of readers, you can sell other things that people are prepared to pay for. It's obvious that Google's main product is search, but no-one has ever paid for it, so how come they're a $120 billion company? Think about it Rupert, think outside the box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing about the internet is that you do n't have to sell what you make .
Monetising the web is n't just about selling the digital content you create , that 's too simple and quite frankly , outdated .
If you have a news site that has a lot of readers , you can sell other things that people are prepared to pay for .
It 's obvious that Google 's main product is search , but no-one has ever paid for it , so how come they 're a $ 120 billion company ?
Think about it Rupert , think outside the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing about the internet is that you don't have to sell what you make.
Monetising the web isn't just about selling the digital content you create, that's too simple and quite frankly, outdated.
If you have a news site that has a lot of readers, you can sell other things that people are prepared to pay for.
It's obvious that Google's main product is search, but no-one has ever paid for it, so how come they're a $120 billion company?
Think about it Rupert, think outside the box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638290</id>
	<title>Fools and their money are soon parted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269691380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could be Murdoch or could be you, if he succeeds.</p><p>When you pay for content on the internet it usually means you give up your real life identity.  That combined with what you think (i.e. read) is an extremely valuable commodity.</p><p>It is also information that can be used against you should it come to that.  It infringes on your right to privacy and to hold your own thoughts.</p><p>The internet offers tremendous cost savings over print.  Murdoch is an extremely greedy man and too stupid to know how to successfully associate content with advertisement or advertisement with content.  Or to successfully make the argument that ads should be paid for even if they aren't clicked on.</p><p>The identity driven information Murdoch could glean from you is even greater than anything Google ever imagined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could be Murdoch or could be you , if he succeeds.When you pay for content on the internet it usually means you give up your real life identity .
That combined with what you think ( i.e .
read ) is an extremely valuable commodity.It is also information that can be used against you should it come to that .
It infringes on your right to privacy and to hold your own thoughts.The internet offers tremendous cost savings over print .
Murdoch is an extremely greedy man and too stupid to know how to successfully associate content with advertisement or advertisement with content .
Or to successfully make the argument that ads should be paid for even if they are n't clicked on.The identity driven information Murdoch could glean from you is even greater than anything Google ever imagined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could be Murdoch or could be you, if he succeeds.When you pay for content on the internet it usually means you give up your real life identity.
That combined with what you think (i.e.
read) is an extremely valuable commodity.It is also information that can be used against you should it come to that.
It infringes on your right to privacy and to hold your own thoughts.The internet offers tremendous cost savings over print.
Murdoch is an extremely greedy man and too stupid to know how to successfully associate content with advertisement or advertisement with content.
Or to successfully make the argument that ads should be paid for even if they aren't clicked on.The identity driven information Murdoch could glean from you is even greater than anything Google ever imagined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638222</id>
	<title>Re:This might have worked...</title>
	<author>McHenry Boatride</author>
	<datestamp>1269690300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the great thing is that now Murdoch's outlets won't show up in the search results! And you don't have to pay a cent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the great thing is that now Murdoch 's outlets wo n't show up in the search results !
And you do n't have to pay a cent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the great thing is that now Murdoch's outlets won't show up in the search results!
And you don't have to pay a cent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638704</id>
	<title>Doomed</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1269697500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true that good content needs to be paid for, and that people are prepared to pay for good content, but The Times isn't it. The FT and the Economist have plenty of paying subscribers, but for many it is crucial to their work hence provides a tangible ROI. I cannot see a propaganda sheet, disguised as a generic newspaper, being something worth paying for over all the free quality alternatives.</p><p>There will be people that take up the service, an older generation that have been stuck in a rut reading The Times for a decade and unwilling to make the switch, and they may consider this small percentage as an encouraging success. However, this will not grow as all the other papers poach today's more fickle readers to grow their own ad revenue.</p><p>A micro-payment service like Flattr would work much better. If a paper has a quality or provocative journalist, like Jeremy Clarkson, I would happily put them on my list. If he is the only benefit but I would have to take out a site-wide subscription, it would be cheaper to buy his book. For now it appears advertising will be the principle revenue generator, and that isn't being fully exploited yet. For instance, I notice there are no Google-style search ads when I do a keyword search in the Guardian. Does their RSS feed have ads? Much as I hate ads, Google have shown us how it can be done without being as annoying yet still provide plenty of revenue. They should learn from successes such as Google, not failures like Salon.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that good content needs to be paid for , and that people are prepared to pay for good content , but The Times is n't it .
The FT and the Economist have plenty of paying subscribers , but for many it is crucial to their work hence provides a tangible ROI .
I can not see a propaganda sheet , disguised as a generic newspaper , being something worth paying for over all the free quality alternatives.There will be people that take up the service , an older generation that have been stuck in a rut reading The Times for a decade and unwilling to make the switch , and they may consider this small percentage as an encouraging success .
However , this will not grow as all the other papers poach today 's more fickle readers to grow their own ad revenue.A micro-payment service like Flattr would work much better .
If a paper has a quality or provocative journalist , like Jeremy Clarkson , I would happily put them on my list .
If he is the only benefit but I would have to take out a site-wide subscription , it would be cheaper to buy his book .
For now it appears advertising will be the principle revenue generator , and that is n't being fully exploited yet .
For instance , I notice there are no Google-style search ads when I do a keyword search in the Guardian .
Does their RSS feed have ads ?
Much as I hate ads , Google have shown us how it can be done without being as annoying yet still provide plenty of revenue .
They should learn from successes such as Google , not failures like Salon.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that good content needs to be paid for, and that people are prepared to pay for good content, but The Times isn't it.
The FT and the Economist have plenty of paying subscribers, but for many it is crucial to their work hence provides a tangible ROI.
I cannot see a propaganda sheet, disguised as a generic newspaper, being something worth paying for over all the free quality alternatives.There will be people that take up the service, an older generation that have been stuck in a rut reading The Times for a decade and unwilling to make the switch, and they may consider this small percentage as an encouraging success.
However, this will not grow as all the other papers poach today's more fickle readers to grow their own ad revenue.A micro-payment service like Flattr would work much better.
If a paper has a quality or provocative journalist, like Jeremy Clarkson, I would happily put them on my list.
If he is the only benefit but I would have to take out a site-wide subscription, it would be cheaper to buy his book.
For now it appears advertising will be the principle revenue generator, and that isn't being fully exploited yet.
For instance, I notice there are no Google-style search ads when I do a keyword search in the Guardian.
Does their RSS feed have ads?
Much as I hate ads, Google have shown us how it can be done without being as annoying yet still provide plenty of revenue.
They should learn from successes such as Google, not failures like Salon.Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641836</id>
	<title>Isn't that his goal?</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1269721380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Charging a pound a day to read news is ill-advised. It will transform this man's newspaper from being the anchor media of the community to being just another website for the rich and their wack-job worshipers.</p></div><p>This is Rupert Murdoch we're talking about.  I mean, that's what he's done with TV news over here in the US, you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charging a pound a day to read news is ill-advised .
It will transform this man 's newspaper from being the anchor media of the community to being just another website for the rich and their wack-job worshipers.This is Rupert Murdoch we 're talking about .
I mean , that 's what he 's done with TV news over here in the US , you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charging a pound a day to read news is ill-advised.
It will transform this man's newspaper from being the anchor media of the community to being just another website for the rich and their wack-job worshipers.This is Rupert Murdoch we're talking about.
I mean, that's what he's done with TV news over here in the US, you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638376</id>
	<title>Re:8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>sodul</author>
	<datestamp>1269692520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the only Americans who have ever heard of Global Collect are Sony</p></div><p>FYI <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony" title="wikipedia.org">Sony</a> [wikipedia.org] is Japanese.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the only Americans who have ever heard of Global Collect are SonyFYI Sony [ wikipedia.org ] is Japanese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the only Americans who have ever heard of Global Collect are SonyFYI Sony [wikipedia.org] is Japanese.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639116</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269701640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As most "newspapers" don't have much talent outside their very local area, they already are aggregators, so I doubt many people will pay for them, other than the older folks who just must see the info from the same companies they read from on paper.  And, if this succeeds, it's bound to set those companies up for a big fall when those older folks die off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As most " newspapers " do n't have much talent outside their very local area , they already are aggregators , so I doubt many people will pay for them , other than the older folks who just must see the info from the same companies they read from on paper .
And , if this succeeds , it 's bound to set those companies up for a big fall when those older folks die off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As most "newspapers" don't have much talent outside their very local area, they already are aggregators, so I doubt many people will pay for them, other than the older folks who just must see the info from the same companies they read from on paper.
And, if this succeeds, it's bound to set those companies up for a big fall when those older folks die off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638010</id>
	<title>No decent micro-payment system.</title>
	<author>the\_raptor</author>
	<datestamp>1269687360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For these business models to work there needs to be a decent micro-payment system. I don't want to get out my credit card for every single website, especially for small amounts, and don't want to pay a subscription for a service I don't know if I will regularly use. Paypal is currently the only real player, and in my opinion they are a bunch of crooks who are playing legal games to avoid having banking regulations applied to them and subsequently having their dirty laundry aired.</p><p>National and international banking systems need to get together and figure out a proper micro-payment system (with amount limits so dodgy websites can't drain your account) before this sort of business model will take off. I might be tempted to pay 10 cents to read an article, but not if I have to pull out my credit card on the spot or sign up for a subscription first. Instead what will happen is regular users will sign up and everyone else will go to the free sites. The results being the regulars pay more to cover the running costs and possibly the failure of the website to sustain itself due to loss of ad revenue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For these business models to work there needs to be a decent micro-payment system .
I do n't want to get out my credit card for every single website , especially for small amounts , and do n't want to pay a subscription for a service I do n't know if I will regularly use .
Paypal is currently the only real player , and in my opinion they are a bunch of crooks who are playing legal games to avoid having banking regulations applied to them and subsequently having their dirty laundry aired.National and international banking systems need to get together and figure out a proper micro-payment system ( with amount limits so dodgy websites ca n't drain your account ) before this sort of business model will take off .
I might be tempted to pay 10 cents to read an article , but not if I have to pull out my credit card on the spot or sign up for a subscription first .
Instead what will happen is regular users will sign up and everyone else will go to the free sites .
The results being the regulars pay more to cover the running costs and possibly the failure of the website to sustain itself due to loss of ad revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For these business models to work there needs to be a decent micro-payment system.
I don't want to get out my credit card for every single website, especially for small amounts, and don't want to pay a subscription for a service I don't know if I will regularly use.
Paypal is currently the only real player, and in my opinion they are a bunch of crooks who are playing legal games to avoid having banking regulations applied to them and subsequently having their dirty laundry aired.National and international banking systems need to get together and figure out a proper micro-payment system (with amount limits so dodgy websites can't drain your account) before this sort of business model will take off.
I might be tempted to pay 10 cents to read an article, but not if I have to pull out my credit card on the spot or sign up for a subscription first.
Instead what will happen is regular users will sign up and everyone else will go to the free sites.
The results being the regulars pay more to cover the running costs and possibly the failure of the website to sustain itself due to loss of ad revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</id>
	<title>The Guardian</title>
	<author>Joe Jay Bee</author>
	<datestamp>1269688080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/" title="guardian.co.uk">the Guardian</a> [guardian.co.uk], which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories like News International's papers do (people often talk of the paper being liberal, which on its comments pages is largely true, but they do a good job of keeping it out of their news reporting), remains free for everyone with an extensive back archive. And of course the BBC exists too... thank God.</p><p>I can only echo the poster above who said he hopes Murdoch puts up more paywalls. Murdoch's shitty reporting and deliberately biased and bigoted publications have ruined political discourse in this country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , the Guardian [ guardian.co.uk ] , which has far superior journalism and does n't seek to ram politics down everyone 's throats in " news " stories like News International 's papers do ( people often talk of the paper being liberal , which on its comments pages is largely true , but they do a good job of keeping it out of their news reporting ) , remains free for everyone with an extensive back archive .
And of course the BBC exists too... thank God.I can only echo the poster above who said he hopes Murdoch puts up more paywalls .
Murdoch 's shitty reporting and deliberately biased and bigoted publications have ruined political discourse in this country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, the Guardian [guardian.co.uk], which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories like News International's papers do (people often talk of the paper being liberal, which on its comments pages is largely true, but they do a good job of keeping it out of their news reporting), remains free for everyone with an extensive back archive.
And of course the BBC exists too... thank God.I can only echo the poster above who said he hopes Murdoch puts up more paywalls.
Murdoch's shitty reporting and deliberately biased and bigoted publications have ruined political discourse in this country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638352</id>
	<title>This is me, catching breath</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1269692160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight: You want me to pay a buck a day to cram your propaganda down my throat?</p><p>*collapses in a twitching, giggling heap on the floor again*</p><p>If you can sell that, get a few fences to paint, you could make a killing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight : You want me to pay a buck a day to cram your propaganda down my throat ?
* collapses in a twitching , giggling heap on the floor again * If you can sell that , get a few fences to paint , you could make a killing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight: You want me to pay a buck a day to cram your propaganda down my throat?
*collapses in a twitching, giggling heap on the floor again*If you can sell that, get a few fences to paint, you could make a killing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638992</id>
	<title>It's like the internet dead penalty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Self-inflicted.</p><p>I wonder what their on-line advertisers think of this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Self-inflicted.I wonder what their on-line advertisers think of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Self-inflicted.I wonder what their on-line advertisers think of this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639228</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>geegel</author>
	<datestamp>1269703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While not unlikely, there's a small flaw to this plan. What happens in the long run? You only have your subscribers and no new way (except advertising) to attract new readers. The subscriber base slowly erodes (depending on the quality of the product). Even if you manage an 85\% repeat business rate, things will go south pretty fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While not unlikely , there 's a small flaw to this plan .
What happens in the long run ?
You only have your subscribers and no new way ( except advertising ) to attract new readers .
The subscriber base slowly erodes ( depending on the quality of the product ) .
Even if you manage an 85 \ % repeat business rate , things will go south pretty fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While not unlikely, there's a small flaw to this plan.
What happens in the long run?
You only have your subscribers and no new way (except advertising) to attract new readers.
The subscriber base slowly erodes (depending on the quality of the product).
Even if you manage an 85\% repeat business rate, things will go south pretty fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638506</id>
	<title>Why it won't work</title>
	<author>geegel</author>
	<datestamp>1269694380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to the fact that "The Times" has quite a reputation, in the initial stage the scheme will be a relative success. As time goes by however, the paywall will show its ugly teeth. No more external links driving traffic and no more SERPs in Google.</p><p>Paywalls fail not because they make people pay, they fail because they effectively isolate the website from the rest of the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to the fact that " The Times " has quite a reputation , in the initial stage the scheme will be a relative success .
As time goes by however , the paywall will show its ugly teeth .
No more external links driving traffic and no more SERPs in Google.Paywalls fail not because they make people pay , they fail because they effectively isolate the website from the rest of the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to the fact that "The Times" has quite a reputation, in the initial stage the scheme will be a relative success.
As time goes by however, the paywall will show its ugly teeth.
No more external links driving traffic and no more SERPs in Google.Paywalls fail not because they make people pay, they fail because they effectively isolate the website from the rest of the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638268</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>ScaryTom</author>
	<datestamp>1269691080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the readership drops to 5\% of its current number, won't that put advertisers off a bit? Or have they factored that into their pricing strategy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the readership drops to 5 \ % of its current number , wo n't that put advertisers off a bit ?
Or have they factored that into their pricing strategy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the readership drops to 5\% of its current number, won't that put advertisers off a bit?
Or have they factored that into their pricing strategy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640856</id>
	<title>Re:8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269714300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People use the net different then a newspaper. When you take a newspaper subscription, you read it like a book. But when you browse the net, you go here you go there. Take in a page here, an article there. The problem isn't paying 1 subscription fee, it is paying dozens.</p></div></blockquote><p>Spot on. I subscribed to The Economist a while back and considered it a good read. It'd fall onto the doormat and I'd sit it aside until I had a decent amount of spare time to sit down and read it, thoroughly. It was high quality content where time and care had been put into it's creation and I gave it time and care to read. Even where I disagreed with their positions I could see how they had arrived to that point - arguments were usually informative, interesting and above all insightful (it was also occasionally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Economist#Appearance\_in\_popular\_culture" title="wikipedia.org">funny</a> [wikipedia.org]). Most importantly, they were presented as an argument and rarely as fact.</p><p>Newspapers however are increasingly following the lead set by the internet. News is short, lacking in detail or analysis yet waffles on trivialities, opinions are asserted rather than debated and the overall impression is that someone (and I don't know or care who) is trying to convince you of something they do not really know much about. It does not help that I might read a story on digg or wherever and the next day the same story is in the newspaper with next to no value added. Aside from their own major investigations (which can still be pretty good), there is nothing there that makes any newspaper's print any more valuable than the newswire most of it came from.</p><p>The focus seems to be on quantity and immediacy, in total ignorance of what gives a news source value in the eyes of the consumer: quality. When I read a news paper or whatever online source I rarely care where it is coming from because regardless of who that is I place no reliance on them whatsoever. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People use the net different then a newspaper .
When you take a newspaper subscription , you read it like a book .
But when you browse the net , you go here you go there .
Take in a page here , an article there .
The problem is n't paying 1 subscription fee , it is paying dozens.Spot on .
I subscribed to The Economist a while back and considered it a good read .
It 'd fall onto the doormat and I 'd sit it aside until I had a decent amount of spare time to sit down and read it , thoroughly .
It was high quality content where time and care had been put into it 's creation and I gave it time and care to read .
Even where I disagreed with their positions I could see how they had arrived to that point - arguments were usually informative , interesting and above all insightful ( it was also occasionally funny [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Most importantly , they were presented as an argument and rarely as fact.Newspapers however are increasingly following the lead set by the internet .
News is short , lacking in detail or analysis yet waffles on trivialities , opinions are asserted rather than debated and the overall impression is that someone ( and I do n't know or care who ) is trying to convince you of something they do not really know much about .
It does not help that I might read a story on digg or wherever and the next day the same story is in the newspaper with next to no value added .
Aside from their own major investigations ( which can still be pretty good ) , there is nothing there that makes any newspaper 's print any more valuable than the newswire most of it came from.The focus seems to be on quantity and immediacy , in total ignorance of what gives a news source value in the eyes of the consumer : quality .
When I read a news paper or whatever online source I rarely care where it is coming from because regardless of who that is I place no reliance on them whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People use the net different then a newspaper.
When you take a newspaper subscription, you read it like a book.
But when you browse the net, you go here you go there.
Take in a page here, an article there.
The problem isn't paying 1 subscription fee, it is paying dozens.Spot on.
I subscribed to The Economist a while back and considered it a good read.
It'd fall onto the doormat and I'd sit it aside until I had a decent amount of spare time to sit down and read it, thoroughly.
It was high quality content where time and care had been put into it's creation and I gave it time and care to read.
Even where I disagreed with their positions I could see how they had arrived to that point - arguments were usually informative, interesting and above all insightful (it was also occasionally funny [wikipedia.org]).
Most importantly, they were presented as an argument and rarely as fact.Newspapers however are increasingly following the lead set by the internet.
News is short, lacking in detail or analysis yet waffles on trivialities, opinions are asserted rather than debated and the overall impression is that someone (and I don't know or care who) is trying to convince you of something they do not really know much about.
It does not help that I might read a story on digg or wherever and the next day the same story is in the newspaper with next to no value added.
Aside from their own major investigations (which can still be pretty good), there is nothing there that makes any newspaper's print any more valuable than the newswire most of it came from.The focus seems to be on quantity and immediacy, in total ignorance of what gives a news source value in the eyes of the consumer: quality.
When I read a news paper or whatever online source I rarely care where it is coming from because regardless of who that is I place no reliance on them whatsoever. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638420</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269693060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... This bastard's mates - who are certain to be the next UK government - are quite prepared to destroy the BBC on his behalf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember this .... This bastard 's mates - who are certain to be the next UK government - are quite prepared to destroy the BBC on his behalf .... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember this .... This bastard's mates - who are certain to be the next UK government - are quite prepared to destroy the BBC on his behalf .....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638780</id>
	<title>Re:Furom 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ultra-conservative editorial board"<br>you just make this up stuff up as you go don't you.<br>sure sounds smart though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ultra-conservative editorial board " you just make this up stuff up as you go do n't you.sure sounds smart though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ultra-conservative editorial board"you just make this up stuff up as you go don't you.sure sounds smart though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638324</id>
	<title>Re:8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269691740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't so much the amount involved, which is the same as buying the dead tree version, it is the fact that it is quicker to find another newspaper on the internet than it is to find your credit card and type all the details in, whereas in a newsagent, it is pretty easy to find a pound coin in your pocket and hand it over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't so much the amount involved , which is the same as buying the dead tree version , it is the fact that it is quicker to find another newspaper on the internet than it is to find your credit card and type all the details in , whereas in a newsagent , it is pretty easy to find a pound coin in your pocket and hand it over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't so much the amount involved, which is the same as buying the dead tree version, it is the fact that it is quicker to find another newspaper on the internet than it is to find your credit card and type all the details in, whereas in a newsagent, it is pretty easy to find a pound coin in your pocket and hand it over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638360</id>
	<title>It'll work GREAT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269692340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just look at how much better Salon.com did after their attempt.  Remember them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at how much better Salon.com did after their attempt .
Remember them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at how much better Salon.com did after their attempt.
Remember them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639166</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1269702420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't recall ever reading a single news item at The Times. I do follow links to The Guardian and The Independent quite frequently, and even to the BBC occasionally. Go thou quietly into the night, Times, for thou shalt not be missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall ever reading a single news item at The Times .
I do follow links to The Guardian and The Independent quite frequently , and even to the BBC occasionally .
Go thou quietly into the night , Times , for thou shalt not be missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall ever reading a single news item at The Times.
I do follow links to The Guardian and The Independent quite frequently, and even to the BBC occasionally.
Go thou quietly into the night, Times, for thou shalt not be missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639910</id>
	<title>Well there are other solutions...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269708600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like news stories are about to move into the realm of piracy.  Seriously if Murdock is going to ransom information, I'm just going to steal it. The only people this is going to hurt are the non-tech savvy folks who are just learning that they can find the truth about anything online, so Murdock can keep them in the dark and feed some fox news to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like news stories are about to move into the realm of piracy .
Seriously if Murdock is going to ransom information , I 'm just going to steal it .
The only people this is going to hurt are the non-tech savvy folks who are just learning that they can find the truth about anything online , so Murdock can keep them in the dark and feed some fox news to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like news stories are about to move into the realm of piracy.
Seriously if Murdock is going to ransom information, I'm just going to steal it.
The only people this is going to hurt are the non-tech savvy folks who are just learning that they can find the truth about anything online, so Murdock can keep them in the dark and feed some fox news to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638304</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>pgdave</author>
	<datestamp>1269691560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At 1 pound, that's entirely possible. For a pound, you can buy the paper version. That price covers the raw materials, the printing and overheads, the distribution and the retailer's profit margin. I don't know what the profit margin on a physical paper is (5p?), but it has to be way less than a pound. An electronic version need only cover journalists and overheads. That might be, what, 10p? Making a very fat 90p gross profit. That could well be 20 times the gross profit on a paper version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At 1 pound , that 's entirely possible .
For a pound , you can buy the paper version .
That price covers the raw materials , the printing and overheads , the distribution and the retailer 's profit margin .
I do n't know what the profit margin on a physical paper is ( 5p ?
) , but it has to be way less than a pound .
An electronic version need only cover journalists and overheads .
That might be , what , 10p ?
Making a very fat 90p gross profit .
That could well be 20 times the gross profit on a paper version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 1 pound, that's entirely possible.
For a pound, you can buy the paper version.
That price covers the raw materials, the printing and overheads, the distribution and the retailer's profit margin.
I don't know what the profit margin on a physical paper is (5p?
), but it has to be way less than a pound.
An electronic version need only cover journalists and overheads.
That might be, what, 10p?
Making a very fat 90p gross profit.
That could well be 20 times the gross profit on a paper version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638770</id>
	<title>It works for Janes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Janes offers so much more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Janes offers so much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Janes offers so much more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638860</id>
	<title>Ads with subscription?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know if subscribers will see ads when viewing articles? (or not just articles, but anywhere on the site?)</p><p>As SmallFurryCreature said up top: "When you take a newspaper subscription, you read it like a book. But when you browse the net, you go here you go there" which I agree with.</p><p>And this makes me feel like if I'm subscribing to read an article or two from a site, I *really* don't want to be bothered with anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know if subscribers will see ads when viewing articles ?
( or not just articles , but anywhere on the site ?
) As SmallFurryCreature said up top : " When you take a newspaper subscription , you read it like a book .
But when you browse the net , you go here you go there " which I agree with.And this makes me feel like if I 'm subscribing to read an article or two from a site , I * really * do n't want to be bothered with anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know if subscribers will see ads when viewing articles?
(or not just articles, but anywhere on the site?
)As SmallFurryCreature said up top: "When you take a newspaper subscription, you read it like a book.
But when you browse the net, you go here you go there" which I agree with.And this makes me feel like if I'm subscribing to read an article or two from a site, I *really* don't want to be bothered with anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638560</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269695280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Thankfully, the Guardian [guardian.co.uk], which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories"</p><p>Hilarious!</p><p>To a leftie, anybody who agrees with their insane, Marxist ideology is 'objective'.<br>Guardian readers are universally despised by the REST of the population, which would be about 99\% of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thankfully , the Guardian [ guardian.co.uk ] , which has far superior journalism and does n't seek to ram politics down everyone 's throats in " news " stories " Hilarious ! To a leftie , anybody who agrees with their insane , Marxist ideology is 'objective'.Guardian readers are universally despised by the REST of the population , which would be about 99 \ % of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thankfully, the Guardian [guardian.co.uk], which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories"Hilarious!To a leftie, anybody who agrees with their insane, Marxist ideology is 'objective'.Guardian readers are universally despised by the REST of the population, which would be about 99\% of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640124</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269710160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The old feel just lost and the middle class/aged just don't care as long as the SUV still runs.</p></div><p>lol yeah, and the young don't care as long as they can get drunk.  Lay off the blatant age discrimination man, you should know better.  Just because they don't see the world the way you do doesn't mean they are wrong.  Every age segment has their morons and geniuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The old feel just lost and the middle class/aged just do n't care as long as the SUV still runs.lol yeah , and the young do n't care as long as they can get drunk .
Lay off the blatant age discrimination man , you should know better .
Just because they do n't see the world the way you do does n't mean they are wrong .
Every age segment has their morons and geniuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old feel just lost and the middle class/aged just don't care as long as the SUV still runs.lol yeah, and the young don't care as long as they can get drunk.
Lay off the blatant age discrimination man, you should know better.
Just because they don't see the world the way you do doesn't mean they are wrong.
Every age segment has their morons and geniuses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638104</id>
	<title>this is a good idea...</title>
	<author>FuckingNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1269688500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and other media outlets will follow it. The fact that Murdoch has an agenda doesn't mean that he doesn't understand his business.</p><p>If you want to see what happens to the effort put into journalism in newspapers paid for by advertising alone, you have centuries of precedent. You have to ask yourself: who is your customer? The person who reads your paper, or the person who buys advertising space? To produce a newspaper/web site designed to increase the number of views/clicks of adverts is a very different skills from producing a newspaper/website designed to amass a loyal readership.</p><p>What is more, and especially with the consolidation of advertising brokers (Google, the Walmart elephant in the room), businesses are guaranteed to have dwindling revenues if they rely on advertising alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and other media outlets will follow it .
The fact that Murdoch has an agenda does n't mean that he does n't understand his business.If you want to see what happens to the effort put into journalism in newspapers paid for by advertising alone , you have centuries of precedent .
You have to ask yourself : who is your customer ?
The person who reads your paper , or the person who buys advertising space ?
To produce a newspaper/web site designed to increase the number of views/clicks of adverts is a very different skills from producing a newspaper/website designed to amass a loyal readership.What is more , and especially with the consolidation of advertising brokers ( Google , the Walmart elephant in the room ) , businesses are guaranteed to have dwindling revenues if they rely on advertising alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and other media outlets will follow it.
The fact that Murdoch has an agenda doesn't mean that he doesn't understand his business.If you want to see what happens to the effort put into journalism in newspapers paid for by advertising alone, you have centuries of precedent.
You have to ask yourself: who is your customer?
The person who reads your paper, or the person who buys advertising space?
To produce a newspaper/web site designed to increase the number of views/clicks of adverts is a very different skills from producing a newspaper/website designed to amass a loyal readership.What is more, and especially with the consolidation of advertising brokers (Google, the Walmart elephant in the room), businesses are guaranteed to have dwindling revenues if they rely on advertising alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638496</id>
	<title>Threat?</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1269694320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Rupert Murdoch is delivering on his threat to make readers pay</i></p><p>Saying you're going to stop giving something away is not a threat.  It's ridiculous to characterize it in that way.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rupert Murdoch is delivering on his threat to make readers paySaying you 're going to stop giving something away is not a threat .
It 's ridiculous to characterize it in that way.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rupert Murdoch is delivering on his threat to make readers paySaying you're going to stop giving something away is not a threat.
It's ridiculous to characterize it in that way.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642700</id>
	<title>Popular misconceptions no. 8</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1269684900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People think that the Sun determines the winner of UK Parliamentary Elections. This is because the Sun always supports the winner. This is because the Sun's readers helpfully write, text, email and call the Sun's editorial desk and allow the paper to easily gauge the mood of the country whereby it changes its political colours to suit. The Scottish edition managed to support the Conservatives, the Nationalists and the Socialists in the space of twelve months.
<br> <br>
News Internationals wacky venture  into paywalls is the sort of thing we can expect from a company that does not understand the internet. News International has been so succesful in the past because the competition has always been so weak and stuck in their ways.
<br> <br>
The Internet is an exceptionally strong threat to News International because it challenges it in all of its market sectors. It is quite likely that the web is a much greater threat to NI than any of their suits can either appreciate or convince the CEO. <br>For all the other reasons this is a stupid idea, see my other posts on this subject. I wouldn't want to be duping...</htmltext>
<tokenext>People think that the Sun determines the winner of UK Parliamentary Elections .
This is because the Sun always supports the winner .
This is because the Sun 's readers helpfully write , text , email and call the Sun 's editorial desk and allow the paper to easily gauge the mood of the country whereby it changes its political colours to suit .
The Scottish edition managed to support the Conservatives , the Nationalists and the Socialists in the space of twelve months .
News Internationals wacky venture into paywalls is the sort of thing we can expect from a company that does not understand the internet .
News International has been so succesful in the past because the competition has always been so weak and stuck in their ways .
The Internet is an exceptionally strong threat to News International because it challenges it in all of its market sectors .
It is quite likely that the web is a much greater threat to NI than any of their suits can either appreciate or convince the CEO .
For all the other reasons this is a stupid idea , see my other posts on this subject .
I would n't want to be duping.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People think that the Sun determines the winner of UK Parliamentary Elections.
This is because the Sun always supports the winner.
This is because the Sun's readers helpfully write, text, email and call the Sun's editorial desk and allow the paper to easily gauge the mood of the country whereby it changes its political colours to suit.
The Scottish edition managed to support the Conservatives, the Nationalists and the Socialists in the space of twelve months.
News Internationals wacky venture  into paywalls is the sort of thing we can expect from a company that does not understand the internet.
News International has been so succesful in the past because the competition has always been so weak and stuck in their ways.
The Internet is an exceptionally strong threat to News International because it challenges it in all of its market sectors.
It is quite likely that the web is a much greater threat to NI than any of their suits can either appreciate or convince the CEO.
For all the other reasons this is a stupid idea, see my other posts on this subject.
I wouldn't want to be duping...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639128</id>
	<title>If it were The NEW YORK Times...</title>
	<author>sirrunsalot</author>
	<datestamp>1269701760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>then I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd be glad to pay.  I often pay (donate) for my NPR content because I enjoy it and hope they can continue to produce it.  And because they ask.  I'm not sure that model goes with the general philosophy of for-profit organizations, but they might have better luck asking nicely than they can expect to if they force it.  The fact of the matter is that news takes resources to collect, analyze, and distribute, and I have no reservations about helping to make it possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>then I would n't be thrilled , but I 'd be glad to pay .
I often pay ( donate ) for my NPR content because I enjoy it and hope they can continue to produce it .
And because they ask .
I 'm not sure that model goes with the general philosophy of for-profit organizations , but they might have better luck asking nicely than they can expect to if they force it .
The fact of the matter is that news takes resources to collect , analyze , and distribute , and I have no reservations about helping to make it possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd be glad to pay.
I often pay (donate) for my NPR content because I enjoy it and hope they can continue to produce it.
And because they ask.
I'm not sure that model goes with the general philosophy of for-profit organizations, but they might have better luck asking nicely than they can expect to if they force it.
The fact of the matter is that news takes resources to collect, analyze, and distribute, and I have no reservations about helping to make it possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638022</id>
	<title>This might have worked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269687420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...before Murdoch destroyed one of the greatest newspapers in the world. I'd gladly pay to read the NYT or the Washington Post online, just as I've paid for the WSJ online for a decade, but pay to read Murdoch's crap? Heck, I'd gladly pay money to keep it from showing up in my search results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...before Murdoch destroyed one of the greatest newspapers in the world .
I 'd gladly pay to read the NYT or the Washington Post online , just as I 've paid for the WSJ online for a decade , but pay to read Murdoch 's crap ?
Heck , I 'd gladly pay money to keep it from showing up in my search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...before Murdoch destroyed one of the greatest newspapers in the world.
I'd gladly pay to read the NYT or the Washington Post online, just as I've paid for the WSJ online for a decade, but pay to read Murdoch's crap?
Heck, I'd gladly pay money to keep it from showing up in my search results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638118</id>
	<title>I wouldn't mind paying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269688680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if quality is also improved. E.g. more, better and easily searchable content with no ads.<br>The crap they call their on line edition today I can do without.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if quality is also improved .
E.g. more , better and easily searchable content with no ads.The crap they call their on line edition today I can do without .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if quality is also improved.
E.g. more, better and easily searchable content with no ads.The crap they call their on line edition today I can do without.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640046</id>
	<title>Re:&pound;1 per day to access online news?</title>
	<author>colfer</author>
	<datestamp>1269709680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The goal is to keep print subscribers from canceling. This simple point is usually missed in the stories. Print gets better advertising rates. You may think it is short sighted, but nothing else the newspapers have tried is working. The number one reason people cancel is because the online version is free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is to keep print subscribers from canceling .
This simple point is usually missed in the stories .
Print gets better advertising rates .
You may think it is short sighted , but nothing else the newspapers have tried is working .
The number one reason people cancel is because the online version is free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal is to keep print subscribers from canceling.
This simple point is usually missed in the stories.
Print gets better advertising rates.
You may think it is short sighted, but nothing else the newspapers have tried is working.
The number one reason people cancel is because the online version is free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>knaapie</author>
	<datestamp>1269691320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What people tend to forget is that any newsoutlet needs to pay for the content they deliver, either through paying journalists or through paying press agencies. Because newspapers do not get enough money from advertising, they currently need to let journalists go. Press agencies need to lower prices as well, because newspapers expect more for less. The current business model is not maintainable, everyone is losing. Most of all the readers, who are more and more getting the exact same news from any paper, without the  indepth research we should be able to expect from journalists.<br>The current business model has to give, and this is a first step.</p><p>You may not like paying for your news, in the end someone has to pay for it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What people tend to forget is that any newsoutlet needs to pay for the content they deliver , either through paying journalists or through paying press agencies .
Because newspapers do not get enough money from advertising , they currently need to let journalists go .
Press agencies need to lower prices as well , because newspapers expect more for less .
The current business model is not maintainable , everyone is losing .
Most of all the readers , who are more and more getting the exact same news from any paper , without the indepth research we should be able to expect from journalists.The current business model has to give , and this is a first step.You may not like paying for your news , in the end someone has to pay for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What people tend to forget is that any newsoutlet needs to pay for the content they deliver, either through paying journalists or through paying press agencies.
Because newspapers do not get enough money from advertising, they currently need to let journalists go.
Press agencies need to lower prices as well, because newspapers expect more for less.
The current business model is not maintainable, everyone is losing.
Most of all the readers, who are more and more getting the exact same news from any paper, without the  indepth research we should be able to expect from journalists.The current business model has to give, and this is a first step.You may not like paying for your news, in the end someone has to pay for it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638840</id>
	<title>Re:8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>stevey</author>
	<datestamp>1269698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to. But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories. So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article. So I just wouldn't.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I think this sums up most people's interactions with online news very well.</p><p>I <i>do</i> read almost every story on the local Edinburgh newspaper website every few days, but I only do that because it covers <i>local news</i>.  Otherwise I read  articles I see linked to from places like Slashdot, Reddit, or email from friends.</p><p>I imagine the immediate effect of a paywall is that fewer such links will be shared, unless there is something akin to lwn.net's "make a free link" which allows a subscriber to share a protected article for free for a period of time.  (That is something I love about lwn.net; and I have a paid account there.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really read news sites myself , I read stories that I found links to .
But I do n't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories .
So it would be NOT 1 pound per day , but 1 pound per article .
So I just would n't .
I think this sums up most people 's interactions with online news very well.I do read almost every story on the local Edinburgh newspaper website every few days , but I only do that because it covers local news .
Otherwise I read articles I see linked to from places like Slashdot , Reddit , or email from friends.I imagine the immediate effect of a paywall is that fewer such links will be shared , unless there is something akin to lwn.net 's " make a free link " which allows a subscriber to share a protected article for free for a period of time .
( That is something I love about lwn.net ; and I have a paid account there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to.
But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories.
So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article.
So I just wouldn't.
I think this sums up most people's interactions with online news very well.I do read almost every story on the local Edinburgh newspaper website every few days, but I only do that because it covers local news.
Otherwise I read  articles I see linked to from places like Slashdot, Reddit, or email from friends.I imagine the immediate effect of a paywall is that fewer such links will be shared, unless there is something akin to lwn.net's "make a free link" which allows a subscriber to share a protected article for free for a period of time.
(That is something I love about lwn.net; and I have a paid account there.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31649822</id>
	<title>Is 'News' Worthless?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another consequence of global warming....or Amazon rain forest depletion.....or whaling.......or homophobia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......or child abuse by the clergy.....or maybe it is not because of all those things but all the people who believe those things that we have to charge for 'news' again. Something that is worthless is only valued by the worthless....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another consequence of global warming....or Amazon rain forest depletion.....or whaling.......or homophobia ......or child abuse by the clergy.....or maybe it is not because of all those things but all the people who believe those things that we have to charge for 'news ' again .
Something that is worthless is only valued by the worthless... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another consequence of global warming....or Amazon rain forest depletion.....or whaling.......or homophobia ......or child abuse by the clergy.....or maybe it is not because of all those things but all the people who believe those things that we have to charge for 'news' again.
Something that is worthless is only valued by the worthless....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640254</id>
	<title>Not a Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269710880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gave up on them when the site became to bloated with ads, flash and pop ups to read comfortably. My computer just squirms and wiggles in its seat until I relieve it of those pages; then it's happy again. It just wonders back to news.google and finds the same story on a more sane news site.</p><p>Yes yes I know. Noscript, NoFlash, etc... etc... But thats just to much work just to read a story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave up on them when the site became to bloated with ads , flash and pop ups to read comfortably .
My computer just squirms and wiggles in its seat until I relieve it of those pages ; then it 's happy again .
It just wonders back to news.google and finds the same story on a more sane news site.Yes yes I know .
Noscript , NoFlash , etc... etc... But thats just to much work just to read a story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave up on them when the site became to bloated with ads, flash and pop ups to read comfortably.
My computer just squirms and wiggles in its seat until I relieve it of those pages; then it's happy again.
It just wonders back to news.google and finds the same story on a more sane news site.Yes yes I know.
Noscript, NoFlash, etc... etc... But thats just to much work just to read a story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31646022</id>
	<title>Re:Murdoch</title>
	<author>bluetoad</author>
	<datestamp>1269769440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Publishing and Broadcasting Limited was the Packer company.It was formed in the 90's from 2 Packer companies Australian Consolidated Press and Channel Nine.</p><p>News Limited is the Murdoch company and I think it has been for most of the time Murdoch has been publishing his rubbish.</p><p>The state of Queensland in Australia is Murdoch only in the 2 main newspapers (The Courier Mail and The Australian).   That is scary.  The only Fairfax presence is the online brisbanetimes.com.au.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishing and Broadcasting Limited was the Packer company.It was formed in the 90 's from 2 Packer companies Australian Consolidated Press and Channel Nine.News Limited is the Murdoch company and I think it has been for most of the time Murdoch has been publishing his rubbish.The state of Queensland in Australia is Murdoch only in the 2 main newspapers ( The Courier Mail and The Australian ) .
That is scary .
The only Fairfax presence is the online brisbanetimes.com.au .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishing and Broadcasting Limited was the Packer company.It was formed in the 90's from 2 Packer companies Australian Consolidated Press and Channel Nine.News Limited is the Murdoch company and I think it has been for most of the time Murdoch has been publishing his rubbish.The state of Queensland in Australia is Murdoch only in the 2 main newspapers (The Courier Mail and The Australian).
That is scary.
The only Fairfax presence is the online brisbanetimes.com.au.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638662</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read The Guardian and consider myself pretty left-wing on most issues, but their bias sometimes makes me cringe.  They do provide some interesting coverage, but they're nowhere near as objective as the BBC, for example, and even further away from a hypothetical unbiased news source.  </p><p>
I used to read The Times, because it's easier to filter out bias when it's bias that you disagree with, but I stopped when it went beyond bias and into just talking drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read The Guardian and consider myself pretty left-wing on most issues , but their bias sometimes makes me cringe .
They do provide some interesting coverage , but they 're nowhere near as objective as the BBC , for example , and even further away from a hypothetical unbiased news source .
I used to read The Times , because it 's easier to filter out bias when it 's bias that you disagree with , but I stopped when it went beyond bias and into just talking drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read The Guardian and consider myself pretty left-wing on most issues, but their bias sometimes makes me cringe.
They do provide some interesting coverage, but they're nowhere near as objective as the BBC, for example, and even further away from a hypothetical unbiased news source.
I used to read The Times, because it's easier to filter out bias when it's bias that you disagree with, but I stopped when it went beyond bias and into just talking drivel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638608</id>
	<title>This will work</title>
	<author>anarche</author>
	<datestamp>1269696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a few simple reasons</p><p>1) slashdot readers do not represent the general populous. This makes all remarks here invalid.</p><p>2) The general populous - used to paying for <i>everything</i> will - pay to access online news. They do not <i>want</i> to have to search for news, they want it there when they logon.</p><p>3) there is a generation growing up that has the internet as a standard form of media. not all of them like searching for news either. at 2 quid a week, or 3 a month, or 5 a year, they'll pay. its easier.</p><p>scale that to the growing world population, and the cheapness of online publication, this'll work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a few simple reasons1 ) slashdot readers do not represent the general populous .
This makes all remarks here invalid.2 ) The general populous - used to paying for everything will - pay to access online news .
They do not want to have to search for news , they want it there when they logon.3 ) there is a generation growing up that has the internet as a standard form of media .
not all of them like searching for news either .
at 2 quid a week , or 3 a month , or 5 a year , they 'll pay .
its easier.scale that to the growing world population , and the cheapness of online publication , this 'll work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a few simple reasons1) slashdot readers do not represent the general populous.
This makes all remarks here invalid.2) The general populous - used to paying for everything will - pay to access online news.
They do not want to have to search for news, they want it there when they logon.3) there is a generation growing up that has the internet as a standard form of media.
not all of them like searching for news either.
at 2 quid a week, or 3 a month, or 5 a year, they'll pay.
its easier.scale that to the growing world population, and the cheapness of online publication, this'll work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642942</id>
	<title>I hope this fails spectacularly</title>
	<author>Flentil</author>
	<datestamp>1269687000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should be a lesson to others not to do the same thing.  Advertising based web publishing works fine.  This is just greed rearing it's ugly head, driven by one of the greediest and richest men on earth.  He can easily take the fall, and put the terrible idea of a web divided by hundreds of individual paywalls back to bed.  The only people wh want a change like that are publishers, and there are plenty of others willing to do it under the current system even if they jerks do go hide behind these paywalls while they wither and die.  Good riddance to any websites that think they're so special that people should pay to read what they post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should be a lesson to others not to do the same thing .
Advertising based web publishing works fine .
This is just greed rearing it 's ugly head , driven by one of the greediest and richest men on earth .
He can easily take the fall , and put the terrible idea of a web divided by hundreds of individual paywalls back to bed .
The only people wh want a change like that are publishers , and there are plenty of others willing to do it under the current system even if they jerks do go hide behind these paywalls while they wither and die .
Good riddance to any websites that think they 're so special that people should pay to read what they post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should be a lesson to others not to do the same thing.
Advertising based web publishing works fine.
This is just greed rearing it's ugly head, driven by one of the greediest and richest men on earth.
He can easily take the fall, and put the terrible idea of a web divided by hundreds of individual paywalls back to bed.
The only people wh want a change like that are publishers, and there are plenty of others willing to do it under the current system even if they jerks do go hide behind these paywalls while they wither and die.
Good riddance to any websites that think they're so special that people should pay to read what they post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31644232</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>TSPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1269700740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't sound very sustainable to me. Lets say 10\% of their readership signs up and their online sector profits triple. Now the other 90\% will go to other sources, and talk about those other sources while only 10\% would be able to recommend Murdoch's publications. Now if someone is looking for a new news source, they can't check Murdoch's publications for quality without paying, so even if recommended them they might just go with a free site they think is good enough.</p><p>So sure he increases immediate revenue, but he also positions his publications such that the readership will only get smaller an smaller until it vanishes. I'm not accounting for the effect of hard-copies here, but I'm not sure that matters much so a young person who is looking for his first <i>newspaper</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't sound very sustainable to me .
Lets say 10 \ % of their readership signs up and their online sector profits triple .
Now the other 90 \ % will go to other sources , and talk about those other sources while only 10 \ % would be able to recommend Murdoch 's publications .
Now if someone is looking for a new news source , they ca n't check Murdoch 's publications for quality without paying , so even if recommended them they might just go with a free site they think is good enough.So sure he increases immediate revenue , but he also positions his publications such that the readership will only get smaller an smaller until it vanishes .
I 'm not accounting for the effect of hard-copies here , but I 'm not sure that matters much so a young person who is looking for his first newspaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't sound very sustainable to me.
Lets say 10\% of their readership signs up and their online sector profits triple.
Now the other 90\% will go to other sources, and talk about those other sources while only 10\% would be able to recommend Murdoch's publications.
Now if someone is looking for a new news source, they can't check Murdoch's publications for quality without paying, so even if recommended them they might just go with a free site they think is good enough.So sure he increases immediate revenue, but he also positions his publications such that the readership will only get smaller an smaller until it vanishes.
I'm not accounting for the effect of hard-copies here, but I'm not sure that matters much so a young person who is looking for his first newspaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640530</id>
	<title>Trust your instinct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that we don't really know what counts as a "reader" to them.  If I click to RTFA for <i>one</i> link going to them from another site like Slashdot, do I become a reader?  At best, I'm a second-tier viewer who is only going to their site because the the person who posted the article went there, and <i>they</i> might be second-tier viewers to someone else, or a chain of someone-elses that traces back to some primary Times reader that they can <i>maybe</i> expect to get money from.  Or maybe that person will just source from some other site.</p><p>So I think 5\% can be said to be impossible, given that we know very little about the viewing habits of their site.  So they have 1.22M daily viewers.  Unless they produce a graph that shows over 10\% of them read over 20 site pages per day, I have no reason to believe that they're a primary source that will retain readers for the prices they're charging.  And I think even <i>that</i> is being generous.  Better would be to show that visitors are viewing a lot of Times <i>exclusive</i> content, because even someone who is relying heavily on them today can simply jump ship if the attraction is just republished AP/UPI/etc content.  I would assume that any competent newspaper would work out those numbers to exacting detail before even attempting a paywall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that we do n't really know what counts as a " reader " to them .
If I click to RTFA for one link going to them from another site like Slashdot , do I become a reader ?
At best , I 'm a second-tier viewer who is only going to their site because the the person who posted the article went there , and they might be second-tier viewers to someone else , or a chain of someone-elses that traces back to some primary Times reader that they can maybe expect to get money from .
Or maybe that person will just source from some other site.So I think 5 \ % can be said to be impossible , given that we know very little about the viewing habits of their site .
So they have 1.22M daily viewers .
Unless they produce a graph that shows over 10 \ % of them read over 20 site pages per day , I have no reason to believe that they 're a primary source that will retain readers for the prices they 're charging .
And I think even that is being generous .
Better would be to show that visitors are viewing a lot of Times exclusive content , because even someone who is relying heavily on them today can simply jump ship if the attraction is just republished AP/UPI/etc content .
I would assume that any competent newspaper would work out those numbers to exacting detail before even attempting a paywall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that we don't really know what counts as a "reader" to them.
If I click to RTFA for one link going to them from another site like Slashdot, do I become a reader?
At best, I'm a second-tier viewer who is only going to their site because the the person who posted the article went there, and they might be second-tier viewers to someone else, or a chain of someone-elses that traces back to some primary Times reader that they can maybe expect to get money from.
Or maybe that person will just source from some other site.So I think 5\% can be said to be impossible, given that we know very little about the viewing habits of their site.
So they have 1.22M daily viewers.
Unless they produce a graph that shows over 10\% of them read over 20 site pages per day, I have no reason to believe that they're a primary source that will retain readers for the prices they're charging.
And I think even that is being generous.
Better would be to show that visitors are viewing a lot of Times exclusive content, because even someone who is relying heavily on them today can simply jump ship if the attraction is just republished AP/UPI/etc content.
I would assume that any competent newspaper would work out those numbers to exacting detail before even attempting a paywall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638242</id>
	<title>Deja vu all over again?</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1269690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Newspaper paywalls already failed in other countries.  Why would it work in the UK?

Papers make money from advertising.  Asking the readers to pay will drive them away and the advertisers will follow shortly after.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Newspaper paywalls already failed in other countries .
Why would it work in the UK ?
Papers make money from advertising .
Asking the readers to pay will drive them away and the advertisers will follow shortly after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Newspaper paywalls already failed in other countries.
Why would it work in the UK?
Papers make money from advertising.
Asking the readers to pay will drive them away and the advertisers will follow shortly after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638442</id>
	<title>Re:No decent micro-payment system.</title>
	<author>ThePangolino</author>
	<datestamp>1269693540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who said a paywall means no ads?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said a paywall means no ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said a paywall means no ads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641752</id>
	<title>Re: &pound;1 per day to access online news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269720600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People pay ridiculous fees to send SMS text messages when they could convey more information at less cost on a postcard. They don't care about up-front equipment costs. They don't care that SMS is patent encumbered. They are only concerned about speed, reliability and location.</p><p>Likewise, people pay ridiculous fees to run proprietary binaries on their mobile telephones - for amusement or to obtain timely information. So, unfortunately, there may be enough cash-rich idiots to make a newspaper website subscription into a viable business model. Unfortunately, it would also make The New York Times' publishing policy very prescient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People pay ridiculous fees to send SMS text messages when they could convey more information at less cost on a postcard .
They do n't care about up-front equipment costs .
They do n't care that SMS is patent encumbered .
They are only concerned about speed , reliability and location.Likewise , people pay ridiculous fees to run proprietary binaries on their mobile telephones - for amusement or to obtain timely information .
So , unfortunately , there may be enough cash-rich idiots to make a newspaper website subscription into a viable business model .
Unfortunately , it would also make The New York Times ' publishing policy very prescient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People pay ridiculous fees to send SMS text messages when they could convey more information at less cost on a postcard.
They don't care about up-front equipment costs.
They don't care that SMS is patent encumbered.
They are only concerned about speed, reliability and location.Likewise, people pay ridiculous fees to run proprietary binaries on their mobile telephones - for amusement or to obtain timely information.
So, unfortunately, there may be enough cash-rich idiots to make a newspaper website subscription into a viable business model.
Unfortunately, it would also make The New York Times' publishing policy very prescient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638078</id>
	<title>Murdoch</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1269688020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day, when Murdoch started in Australia, his commercial rival was Kerry Packer. Both of them lobbied hard to have media cross ownership laws broken down so they eventually ended up owning most of the Australian media outlets (newspapers and such like). Murdoch left Australia, where his base company Publishing and Broadcast Limited was formed after establishing a strong commercial base with Fox in the US. Murdoch is grooming his son to take over, and he seems even scarier than dad.</p><p>
Meanwhile, back in Au, Packer died and his son took over who ended up selling off his Broadcast and Publishing businesses to get into Casinos.</p><p>
The void left behind is utterly bland, and the media cross ownership laws left behind have just allowed companies interested in asset stripping to come in and, well, do what they do.</p><p>
The only interesting media is Publicly owned, and I hope the BBC will reverse their decision to back away from internet media. It's that kind of thinking that is the future. It's probably time for these old commercial medias to die off anyway having seen what they look like when they die. The irony in all this was to watch the public broadcasters point out that some PBL papers were  plagiarising peoples weblogs at the very time Murdoch was talking of paywalls. If they can't develop original content, people will see it's crap, Faux looses advertising revenue and Murdoch just put another nail in commercial media's coffin.</p><p>
It will be interesting to watch this comedy play out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , when Murdoch started in Australia , his commercial rival was Kerry Packer .
Both of them lobbied hard to have media cross ownership laws broken down so they eventually ended up owning most of the Australian media outlets ( newspapers and such like ) .
Murdoch left Australia , where his base company Publishing and Broadcast Limited was formed after establishing a strong commercial base with Fox in the US .
Murdoch is grooming his son to take over , and he seems even scarier than dad .
Meanwhile , back in Au , Packer died and his son took over who ended up selling off his Broadcast and Publishing businesses to get into Casinos .
The void left behind is utterly bland , and the media cross ownership laws left behind have just allowed companies interested in asset stripping to come in and , well , do what they do .
The only interesting media is Publicly owned , and I hope the BBC will reverse their decision to back away from internet media .
It 's that kind of thinking that is the future .
It 's probably time for these old commercial medias to die off anyway having seen what they look like when they die .
The irony in all this was to watch the public broadcasters point out that some PBL papers were plagiarising peoples weblogs at the very time Murdoch was talking of paywalls .
If they ca n't develop original content , people will see it 's crap , Faux looses advertising revenue and Murdoch just put another nail in commercial media 's coffin .
It will be interesting to watch this comedy play out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, when Murdoch started in Australia, his commercial rival was Kerry Packer.
Both of them lobbied hard to have media cross ownership laws broken down so they eventually ended up owning most of the Australian media outlets (newspapers and such like).
Murdoch left Australia, where his base company Publishing and Broadcast Limited was formed after establishing a strong commercial base with Fox in the US.
Murdoch is grooming his son to take over, and he seems even scarier than dad.
Meanwhile, back in Au, Packer died and his son took over who ended up selling off his Broadcast and Publishing businesses to get into Casinos.
The void left behind is utterly bland, and the media cross ownership laws left behind have just allowed companies interested in asset stripping to come in and, well, do what they do.
The only interesting media is Publicly owned, and I hope the BBC will reverse their decision to back away from internet media.
It's that kind of thinking that is the future.
It's probably time for these old commercial medias to die off anyway having seen what they look like when they die.
The irony in all this was to watch the public broadcasters point out that some PBL papers were  plagiarising peoples weblogs at the very time Murdoch was talking of paywalls.
If they can't develop original content, people will see it's crap, Faux looses advertising revenue and Murdoch just put another nail in commercial media's coffin.
It will be interesting to watch this comedy play out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638018</id>
	<title>Failblog.org</title>
	<author>retech</author>
	<datestamp>1269687420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bet that failblog, once posting Murdoch's photo, will have a higher hit count than the Times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet that failblog , once posting Murdoch 's photo , will have a higher hit count than the Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet that failblog, once posting Murdoch's photo, will have a higher hit count than the Times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638336</id>
	<title>This is great!!!</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1269691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pay walled news is the best thing that could happen to the news industry. Now people will go looking for news elsewhere and they will actually find NEWS. *cough*http://www.unknownnews.org/*cough*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay walled news is the best thing that could happen to the news industry .
Now people will go looking for news elsewhere and they will actually find NEWS .
* cough * http : //www.unknownnews.org/ * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay walled news is the best thing that could happen to the news industry.
Now people will go looking for news elsewhere and they will actually find NEWS.
*cough*http://www.unknownnews.org/*cough*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638882</id>
	<title>I hope this works</title>
	<author>laird</author>
	<datestamp>1269699360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I like getting stuff for free as much as anyone, I hope that this experiment in getting people to pay for content succeeds, because I think that having all content online (except for porn) free with advertising is too constraining. It costs real money to collect and report news, and if there is no real revenue stream the whole thing breaks down. And while I am a strong supporter of citizen journalism, and am in awe of the amazing coverage that people can generate around causes that make them passionate, I believe that there should also be full time, professional journalists and photographers covering news stories, which means that there needs to be some revenue stream associated with providing news.</p><p>That being said, I think that it's almost impossible for content distributors to individually charge for access to content, because it induces too much friction into the process. Specifically, people get content from many places, and it is inefficient for them to maintain a business relationship (with payment info, terms, etc.) individually for every content distributor. For example, I read a dozen web sites regularly (XKCD, Slashdot, daikykos,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) and I do not want to deal with the hassle of setting up accounts, billing, etc., for all of them. But if I could set up one account that could then send money to support the sites that I go to, I would not mind paying for that. Given that I already have a financial relationship with my ISP, and my ISP knows (theoretically) where I go online, I wouldn't mind having my ISP take, say, $1/month and send it to the web sites that I frequent. If you add up $1/month for everyone online, that would be a nice revenue stream to support sites, without the sites having to set up pay-walls, force people to register, etc., and by keeping the cost low and simple, it would encourage everyone to participate.</p><p>Admittedly this would require ISPs to collect money and give it away, but it could be a competitive advantage, in that web sites would encourage people to use ISPs that support them, and I would hope that people would go out of their way to use ISPs that support the web sites that they like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I like getting stuff for free as much as anyone , I hope that this experiment in getting people to pay for content succeeds , because I think that having all content online ( except for porn ) free with advertising is too constraining .
It costs real money to collect and report news , and if there is no real revenue stream the whole thing breaks down .
And while I am a strong supporter of citizen journalism , and am in awe of the amazing coverage that people can generate around causes that make them passionate , I believe that there should also be full time , professional journalists and photographers covering news stories , which means that there needs to be some revenue stream associated with providing news.That being said , I think that it 's almost impossible for content distributors to individually charge for access to content , because it induces too much friction into the process .
Specifically , people get content from many places , and it is inefficient for them to maintain a business relationship ( with payment info , terms , etc .
) individually for every content distributor .
For example , I read a dozen web sites regularly ( XKCD , Slashdot , daikykos , ... ) and I do not want to deal with the hassle of setting up accounts , billing , etc. , for all of them .
But if I could set up one account that could then send money to support the sites that I go to , I would not mind paying for that .
Given that I already have a financial relationship with my ISP , and my ISP knows ( theoretically ) where I go online , I would n't mind having my ISP take , say , $ 1/month and send it to the web sites that I frequent .
If you add up $ 1/month for everyone online , that would be a nice revenue stream to support sites , without the sites having to set up pay-walls , force people to register , etc. , and by keeping the cost low and simple , it would encourage everyone to participate.Admittedly this would require ISPs to collect money and give it away , but it could be a competitive advantage , in that web sites would encourage people to use ISPs that support them , and I would hope that people would go out of their way to use ISPs that support the web sites that they like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I like getting stuff for free as much as anyone, I hope that this experiment in getting people to pay for content succeeds, because I think that having all content online (except for porn) free with advertising is too constraining.
It costs real money to collect and report news, and if there is no real revenue stream the whole thing breaks down.
And while I am a strong supporter of citizen journalism, and am in awe of the amazing coverage that people can generate around causes that make them passionate, I believe that there should also be full time, professional journalists and photographers covering news stories, which means that there needs to be some revenue stream associated with providing news.That being said, I think that it's almost impossible for content distributors to individually charge for access to content, because it induces too much friction into the process.
Specifically, people get content from many places, and it is inefficient for them to maintain a business relationship (with payment info, terms, etc.
) individually for every content distributor.
For example, I read a dozen web sites regularly (XKCD, Slashdot, daikykos, ...) and I do not want to deal with the hassle of setting up accounts, billing, etc., for all of them.
But if I could set up one account that could then send money to support the sites that I go to, I would not mind paying for that.
Given that I already have a financial relationship with my ISP, and my ISP knows (theoretically) where I go online, I wouldn't mind having my ISP take, say, $1/month and send it to the web sites that I frequent.
If you add up $1/month for everyone online, that would be a nice revenue stream to support sites, without the sites having to set up pay-walls, force people to register, etc., and by keeping the cost low and simple, it would encourage everyone to participate.Admittedly this would require ISPs to collect money and give it away, but it could be a competitive advantage, in that web sites would encourage people to use ISPs that support them, and I would hope that people would go out of their way to use ISPs that support the web sites that they like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642272</id>
	<title>Should content be free?</title>
	<author>dafing</author>
	<datestamp>1269681600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll complain as much as the next man when my favourite sites have paywalls erected, but surely news is worth SOMETHING?
<br> <br>
News flash:  A majority of people online whine and bitch every time they have to pay a cent!  No matter what they get, they are always wanting it for free!  I have friends who complain bitterly about the price of the iTunes store, almost all songs are between $1.79 and 2.39 NZD, probably the cost of a large bottle of Coke say.  "oh, if it were 20 cents a song, THEN I'd buy...", thats right, until the music is priced at some useless amount, they "refuse to pay that exorbitant fee" !  Bittorrenting/Rapidsharing (heh) everything that was ever produced.
<br> <br>
I say, C'mon!  A couple bucks for a song is chump change!  What does "1.79" buy you anyway?
<br> <br>
I dont see myself lining up to pay for news - shouldnt advertising take care of that sort of thing? -, but if a company wants to charge you "$1" for access, who are you to complain?  By all means, feel free to start your own news company offering access for "99c"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  There is a cost to having journalists and editors and bandwidth and...
<br> <br>
I support many free sites, I love contributing to Wikipedia and cant see myself "buying an encyclopedia", but there is a cost to producing material, online or in dead tree form, so why complain about giving some of your change to pay for an everlasting good? (a song cant be emptied like a bottle of Coke)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll complain as much as the next man when my favourite sites have paywalls erected , but surely news is worth SOMETHING ?
News flash : A majority of people online whine and bitch every time they have to pay a cent !
No matter what they get , they are always wanting it for free !
I have friends who complain bitterly about the price of the iTunes store , almost all songs are between $ 1.79 and 2.39 NZD , probably the cost of a large bottle of Coke say .
" oh , if it were 20 cents a song , THEN I 'd buy... " , thats right , until the music is priced at some useless amount , they " refuse to pay that exorbitant fee " !
Bittorrenting/Rapidsharing ( heh ) everything that was ever produced .
I say , C'mon !
A couple bucks for a song is chump change !
What does " 1.79 " buy you anyway ?
I dont see myself lining up to pay for news - shouldnt advertising take care of that sort of thing ?
- , but if a company wants to charge you " $ 1 " for access , who are you to complain ?
By all means , feel free to start your own news company offering access for " 99c " : ) There is a cost to having journalists and editors and bandwidth and.. . I support many free sites , I love contributing to Wikipedia and cant see myself " buying an encyclopedia " , but there is a cost to producing material , online or in dead tree form , so why complain about giving some of your change to pay for an everlasting good ?
( a song cant be emptied like a bottle of Coke )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll complain as much as the next man when my favourite sites have paywalls erected, but surely news is worth SOMETHING?
News flash:  A majority of people online whine and bitch every time they have to pay a cent!
No matter what they get, they are always wanting it for free!
I have friends who complain bitterly about the price of the iTunes store, almost all songs are between $1.79 and 2.39 NZD, probably the cost of a large bottle of Coke say.
"oh, if it were 20 cents a song, THEN I'd buy...", thats right, until the music is priced at some useless amount, they "refuse to pay that exorbitant fee" !
Bittorrenting/Rapidsharing (heh) everything that was ever produced.
I say, C'mon!
A couple bucks for a song is chump change!
What does "1.79" buy you anyway?
I dont see myself lining up to pay for news - shouldnt advertising take care of that sort of thing?
-, but if a company wants to charge you "$1" for access, who are you to complain?
By all means, feel free to start your own news company offering access for "99c" :)  There is a cost to having journalists and editors and bandwidth and...
 
I support many free sites, I love contributing to Wikipedia and cant see myself "buying an encyclopedia", but there is a cost to producing material, online or in dead tree form, so why complain about giving some of your change to pay for an everlasting good?
(a song cant be emptied like a bottle of Coke)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639968</id>
	<title>News International in the UK</title>
	<author>turgid</author>
	<datestamp>1269709200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their main newspaper in the UK is the Sun. It's selling points are bare breasts on page 3, porn stories thinly disguised as "problems" (Dear Deardrie) and football news.
</p><p>The rest of the paper is taken up with intolerant right-wing propaganda and celebrity gossip.
</p><p>Most worryingly, though, it is the newspaper whose political leanings decide the result of the UK's General Elections. This time around the Sun has switched back to supporting the Conservatives.
</p><p>This is the rag the proles get their politics from.
</p><p>I've never paid for a copy of the Sun, but if I ever look at it (note you can't actually read it) I confine my interest to the bare breasts and the porn stories. I get my news from BBC Radio 4, BBC Mewsnight, Channel 4 News and the Guardian.
</p><p>The Times is just the Sun but without the breasts and porn stories, i.e. for people who think they are better than that somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their main newspaper in the UK is the Sun .
It 's selling points are bare breasts on page 3 , porn stories thinly disguised as " problems " ( Dear Deardrie ) and football news .
The rest of the paper is taken up with intolerant right-wing propaganda and celebrity gossip .
Most worryingly , though , it is the newspaper whose political leanings decide the result of the UK 's General Elections .
This time around the Sun has switched back to supporting the Conservatives .
This is the rag the proles get their politics from .
I 've never paid for a copy of the Sun , but if I ever look at it ( note you ca n't actually read it ) I confine my interest to the bare breasts and the porn stories .
I get my news from BBC Radio 4 , BBC Mewsnight , Channel 4 News and the Guardian .
The Times is just the Sun but without the breasts and porn stories , i.e .
for people who think they are better than that somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their main newspaper in the UK is the Sun.
It's selling points are bare breasts on page 3, porn stories thinly disguised as "problems" (Dear Deardrie) and football news.
The rest of the paper is taken up with intolerant right-wing propaganda and celebrity gossip.
Most worryingly, though, it is the newspaper whose political leanings decide the result of the UK's General Elections.
This time around the Sun has switched back to supporting the Conservatives.
This is the rag the proles get their politics from.
I've never paid for a copy of the Sun, but if I ever look at it (note you can't actually read it) I confine my interest to the bare breasts and the porn stories.
I get my news from BBC Radio 4, BBC Mewsnight, Channel 4 News and the Guardian.
The Times is just the Sun but without the breasts and porn stories, i.e.
for people who think they are better than that somehow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638494</id>
	<title>Already hacked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269694260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in conjunction with this announcement, a permanent way around the paywall in June was announced today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in conjunction with this announcement , a permanent way around the paywall in June was announced today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in conjunction with this announcement, a permanent way around the paywall in June was announced today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958</id>
	<title>&pound;1 per day to access online news?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269686700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Methinks this will end in tears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Methinks this will end in tears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Methinks this will end in tears.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638572</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269695580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thankfully, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/" title="guardian.co.uk">the Guardian</a> [guardian.co.uk], which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories like News International's papers do</p></div><p>Erm, I think this statement belies your own politics. The guardian is staunchly "New Labour" and I find the vast majority of its reporting to be extremely politically biased.  This shouldn't surprise anyone who considers the volume of public sector advertising in this paper.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , the Guardian [ guardian.co.uk ] , which has far superior journalism and does n't seek to ram politics down everyone 's throats in " news " stories like News International 's papers doErm , I think this statement belies your own politics .
The guardian is staunchly " New Labour " and I find the vast majority of its reporting to be extremely politically biased .
This should n't surprise anyone who considers the volume of public sector advertising in this paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, the Guardian [guardian.co.uk], which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories like News International's papers doErm, I think this statement belies your own politics.
The guardian is staunchly "New Labour" and I find the vast majority of its reporting to be extremely politically biased.
This shouldn't surprise anyone who considers the volume of public sector advertising in this paper.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638116</id>
	<title>Good News</title>
	<author>Timtimes</author>
	<datestamp>1269688680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This little test will ultimately go down in flames.  The propaganda he spews needs to be spread as far and wide as possible.  So they'll either reopen the flood gates or find some other form of wingnut welfare to fund the dispersal of misinformation.

The universe of people willing to be paid to be lied to isn't nearly large enough to feed the hunger of such greedy sociopaths.   Watch and see.

Enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This little test will ultimately go down in flames .
The propaganda he spews needs to be spread as far and wide as possible .
So they 'll either reopen the flood gates or find some other form of wingnut welfare to fund the dispersal of misinformation .
The universe of people willing to be paid to be lied to is n't nearly large enough to feed the hunger of such greedy sociopaths .
Watch and see .
Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This little test will ultimately go down in flames.
The propaganda he spews needs to be spread as far and wide as possible.
So they'll either reopen the flood gates or find some other form of wingnut welfare to fund the dispersal of misinformation.
The universe of people willing to be paid to be lied to isn't nearly large enough to feed the hunger of such greedy sociopaths.
Watch and see.
Enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640276</id>
	<title>Re:No decent micro-payment system.</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1269710940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flattr looks set to become a decent micro-payment system, but it's still in closed beta.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flattr looks set to become a decent micro-payment system , but it 's still in closed beta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flattr looks set to become a decent micro-payment system, but it's still in closed beta.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31646696</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1269784560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a service I think is seriously underrated, Reuters news agency?  Find it at <a href="http://www.reuters.com/" title="reuters.com">http://www.reuters.com/</a> [reuters.com].  They seem to provide remarkably unbiased news.  I guess they make their money selling stores to, well, newspapers.  So if the newspapers model dries up, Reuters will too.  Still, at the moment, it's good quality news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a service I think is seriously underrated , Reuters news agency ?
Find it at http : //www.reuters.com/ [ reuters.com ] .
They seem to provide remarkably unbiased news .
I guess they make their money selling stores to , well , newspapers .
So if the newspapers model dries up , Reuters will too .
Still , at the moment , it 's good quality news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a service I think is seriously underrated, Reuters news agency?
Find it at http://www.reuters.com/ [reuters.com].
They seem to provide remarkably unbiased news.
I guess they make their money selling stores to, well, newspapers.
So if the newspapers model dries up, Reuters will too.
Still, at the moment, it's good quality news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638228</id>
	<title>1 pound ?!?!?</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1269690360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So are they going to charge the same price for electronic and printed editions ?!? Maybe they will find some customers abroad, where the paper edition costs more, but I doubt they will get many customers in UK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are they going to charge the same price for electronic and printed editions ? ! ?
Maybe they will find some customers abroad , where the paper edition costs more , but I doubt they will get many customers in UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are they going to charge the same price for electronic and printed editions ?!?
Maybe they will find some customers abroad, where the paper edition costs more, but I doubt they will get many customers in UK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641424</id>
	<title>Unique content &amp; ads vs. help</title>
	<author>Mandrel</author>
	<datestamp>1269718200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It isn't so much the amount involved, which is the same as buying the dead tree version, it is the fact that it is quicker to find another newspaper on the internet than it is to find your credit card and type all the details in, whereas in a newsagent, it is pretty easy to find a pound coin in your pocket and hand it over.</p></div><p>
Only a fraction of a paper's content covers widely-reported current events. Instead, much of a paper's most interesting material consists of original investigations of issues, as well as analysis and opinion pieces, neither of which can be found in another paper (except through syndication). The critical question is what fraction of people will pay to keep reading these, rather than choosing to find some other but different source of brain food.
</p><p>
What has triggered this crisis is not just the huge reduction in the cost of publishing and distribution that the Web has wrought, which has greatly increased competition in the market for information, but also the better ways product makers now have to get their message out &mdash; their own websites and through search marketing &mdash; which along with a viscous cycle of advertising overexposure is permanently sickening the display advertising industry, of which newspapers are a part.
</p><p>
One solution is for the papers to <a href="http://rbate.com/helpers/faqs" title="rbate.com">earn income</a> [rbate.com] directly from help they give their readers, rather than by giving over a large chunk of their readers' experience to flashing lights.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't so much the amount involved , which is the same as buying the dead tree version , it is the fact that it is quicker to find another newspaper on the internet than it is to find your credit card and type all the details in , whereas in a newsagent , it is pretty easy to find a pound coin in your pocket and hand it over .
Only a fraction of a paper 's content covers widely-reported current events .
Instead , much of a paper 's most interesting material consists of original investigations of issues , as well as analysis and opinion pieces , neither of which can be found in another paper ( except through syndication ) .
The critical question is what fraction of people will pay to keep reading these , rather than choosing to find some other but different source of brain food .
What has triggered this crisis is not just the huge reduction in the cost of publishing and distribution that the Web has wrought , which has greatly increased competition in the market for information , but also the better ways product makers now have to get their message out    their own websites and through search marketing    which along with a viscous cycle of advertising overexposure is permanently sickening the display advertising industry , of which newspapers are a part .
One solution is for the papers to earn income [ rbate.com ] directly from help they give their readers , rather than by giving over a large chunk of their readers ' experience to flashing lights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't so much the amount involved, which is the same as buying the dead tree version, it is the fact that it is quicker to find another newspaper on the internet than it is to find your credit card and type all the details in, whereas in a newsagent, it is pretty easy to find a pound coin in your pocket and hand it over.
Only a fraction of a paper's content covers widely-reported current events.
Instead, much of a paper's most interesting material consists of original investigations of issues, as well as analysis and opinion pieces, neither of which can be found in another paper (except through syndication).
The critical question is what fraction of people will pay to keep reading these, rather than choosing to find some other but different source of brain food.
What has triggered this crisis is not just the huge reduction in the cost of publishing and distribution that the Web has wrought, which has greatly increased competition in the market for information, but also the better ways product makers now have to get their message out — their own websites and through search marketing — which along with a viscous cycle of advertising overexposure is permanently sickening the display advertising industry, of which newspapers are a part.
One solution is for the papers to earn income [rbate.com] directly from help they give their readers, rather than by giving over a large chunk of their readers' experience to flashing lights.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639214</id>
	<title>And this will stop repackaging how?</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1269703200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those prices seem cheap enough that people who want to integrate topics into "merged" newsfeeds (e.g. Science Daily or PhysOrg) will have no problem paying the price and extracting what little information the "news" source provides.  Of course since all the "news" in science generally comes out either via university press releases or journal article abstracts (or increasingly open source journal articles, e.g. PLoS, sometimes PNAS, etc.) there is little value added one can find from public papers.  It would appear that public papers would seem to be relegated into dealing with either local news, some increasingly rare investigative journalism or editorial pieces by informed writers.  Ultimately the papers have to deal with "fair use" particularly if the repackagers are integrating from multiple sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those prices seem cheap enough that people who want to integrate topics into " merged " newsfeeds ( e.g .
Science Daily or PhysOrg ) will have no problem paying the price and extracting what little information the " news " source provides .
Of course since all the " news " in science generally comes out either via university press releases or journal article abstracts ( or increasingly open source journal articles , e.g .
PLoS , sometimes PNAS , etc .
) there is little value added one can find from public papers .
It would appear that public papers would seem to be relegated into dealing with either local news , some increasingly rare investigative journalism or editorial pieces by informed writers .
Ultimately the papers have to deal with " fair use " particularly if the repackagers are integrating from multiple sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those prices seem cheap enough that people who want to integrate topics into "merged" newsfeeds (e.g.
Science Daily or PhysOrg) will have no problem paying the price and extracting what little information the "news" source provides.
Of course since all the "news" in science generally comes out either via university press releases or journal article abstracts (or increasingly open source journal articles, e.g.
PLoS, sometimes PNAS, etc.
) there is little value added one can find from public papers.
It would appear that public papers would seem to be relegated into dealing with either local news, some increasingly rare investigative journalism or editorial pieces by informed writers.
Ultimately the papers have to deal with "fair use" particularly if the repackagers are integrating from multiple sources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31652198</id>
	<title>Re:8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1269786000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes, google cache will likely have a pretty good reprint of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , google cache will likely have a pretty good reprint of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, google cache will likely have a pretty good reprint of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638408</id>
	<title>Just switched ..</title>
	<author>niks42</author>
	<datestamp>1269692940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from the Times to The Guardian for my non-BBC value added news source of the morning. Bye, Times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the Times to The Guardian for my non-BBC value added news source of the morning .
Bye , Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the Times to The Guardian for my non-BBC value added news source of the morning.
Bye, Times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638768</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1269698160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less objective than the Sun, the Star, the Express and the Mail?  Are you living in the same country as me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less objective than the Sun , the Star , the Express and the Mail ?
Are you living in the same country as me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less objective than the Sun, the Star, the Express and the Mail?
Are you living in the same country as me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638736</id>
	<title>If only he would charge the same for Fox News</title>
	<author>yalap</author>
	<datestamp>1269697920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But let's get serious folks, the politicians love that newspapers are failing. Less serious investigative journalism, less scrutiny, fewer FOI requests etc. but what about bloggers, you ask? Bloggers only write about what they find on the web, how many of them are pounding the pavement? eavesdropping in bars? cultivating the next 'Deep Throat' source?

You like your job and your pay check, journalists like their pay check too. Unless you are going to your boss on Monday and say 'all our products and services should be free and  I'll work for free too' then be prepared to pay.

BTW: this announcement is no surprise. Last year he gave a speech on this topic. Then NY Times announced pay-only access would start in 2011. They allowed plenty of time for other competitors to also announce similar plans. If no-one else followed then they could drop the idea. Similar to how US airlines collude when they announce fee and increases.

So subscribe and support the press! or at least click the banner ads when you see something interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But let 's get serious folks , the politicians love that newspapers are failing .
Less serious investigative journalism , less scrutiny , fewer FOI requests etc .
but what about bloggers , you ask ?
Bloggers only write about what they find on the web , how many of them are pounding the pavement ?
eavesdropping in bars ?
cultivating the next 'Deep Throat ' source ?
You like your job and your pay check , journalists like their pay check too .
Unless you are going to your boss on Monday and say 'all our products and services should be free and I 'll work for free too ' then be prepared to pay .
BTW : this announcement is no surprise .
Last year he gave a speech on this topic .
Then NY Times announced pay-only access would start in 2011 .
They allowed plenty of time for other competitors to also announce similar plans .
If no-one else followed then they could drop the idea .
Similar to how US airlines collude when they announce fee and increases .
So subscribe and support the press !
or at least click the banner ads when you see something interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But let's get serious folks, the politicians love that newspapers are failing.
Less serious investigative journalism, less scrutiny, fewer FOI requests etc.
but what about bloggers, you ask?
Bloggers only write about what they find on the web, how many of them are pounding the pavement?
eavesdropping in bars?
cultivating the next 'Deep Throat' source?
You like your job and your pay check, journalists like their pay check too.
Unless you are going to your boss on Monday and say 'all our products and services should be free and  I'll work for free too' then be prepared to pay.
BTW: this announcement is no surprise.
Last year he gave a speech on this topic.
Then NY Times announced pay-only access would start in 2011.
They allowed plenty of time for other competitors to also announce similar plans.
If no-one else followed then they could drop the idea.
Similar to how US airlines collude when they announce fee and increases.
So subscribe and support the press!
or at least click the banner ads when you see something interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642508</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269683580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, depends on what they charge.</p><p>See it like this: On a &ldquo;free&rdquo; site, they only get money for a <em>click</em> on an advertisement. Not for showing it. And CPT (Cost per Thousand) lies perhaps at about $50. But a click rate of 0.1\% is considered exceptionally high! So at at more normal rate of 0.03\%, $50 equals about 3,333,333 page views. Or about <em>$0.00,00,15 per ad view</em>!</p><p>From there you should be able to get a feeling for how little they need, to be more profitable than before. Those &pound;3 should be good for about 300,000 ad views, or at 3 ads per page, about 100,000. With a <em>guaranteed</em> click rate of 0.03\%.<br>Nobody will do that many page views in a single week. not even a hundredth.</p><p>Of course these are very inexact calculations, but retaining above only about 1\% of their users should make them more money than now.</p><p>I guess the reason they leave us with no choice but to pay, is that with adblock, nobody sees any ads anymore anyway. Much less clicks them. But the money for the staff must come from somewhere...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , depends on what they charge.See it like this : On a    free    site , they only get money for a click on an advertisement .
Not for showing it .
And CPT ( Cost per Thousand ) lies perhaps at about $ 50 .
But a click rate of 0.1 \ % is considered exceptionally high !
So at at more normal rate of 0.03 \ % , $ 50 equals about 3,333,333 page views .
Or about $ 0.00,00,15 per ad view ! From there you should be able to get a feeling for how little they need , to be more profitable than before .
Those   3 should be good for about 300,000 ad views , or at 3 ads per page , about 100,000 .
With a guaranteed click rate of 0.03 \ % .Nobody will do that many page views in a single week .
not even a hundredth.Of course these are very inexact calculations , but retaining above only about 1 \ % of their users should make them more money than now.I guess the reason they leave us with no choice but to pay , is that with adblock , nobody sees any ads anymore anyway .
Much less clicks them .
But the money for the staff must come from somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, depends on what they charge.See it like this: On a “free” site, they only get money for a click on an advertisement.
Not for showing it.
And CPT (Cost per Thousand) lies perhaps at about $50.
But a click rate of 0.1\% is considered exceptionally high!
So at at more normal rate of 0.03\%, $50 equals about 3,333,333 page views.
Or about $0.00,00,15 per ad view!From there you should be able to get a feeling for how little they need, to be more profitable than before.
Those £3 should be good for about 300,000 ad views, or at 3 ads per page, about 100,000.
With a guaranteed click rate of 0.03\%.Nobody will do that many page views in a single week.
not even a hundredth.Of course these are very inexact calculations, but retaining above only about 1\% of their users should make them more money than now.I guess the reason they leave us with no choice but to pay, is that with adblock, nobody sees any ads anymore anyway.
Much less clicks them.
But the money for the staff must come from somewhere...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31643274</id>
	<title>Worst timing ever</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1269689880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't charge for the Web. The experience that most users get sucks. They are in IE on a PC and it sucks. There are too many other sources that also suck to bother paying, with very rare exception.</p><p>They should be making non-Web content to charge for. For example, iPad apps, or eBooks, and so on. And advertise that on your Web site.</p><p>Think of a Sunday newspaper with a magazine in it. Make the newspaper free (Web), charge a low price for the magazine (eBook). Make the part you pay for downloadable and rich in photos and videos and audio. Make the Web compete with that.</p><p>The reason HBO worked was it was something n&#233;e and different from free ad-supported TV. They didn't try to take NBC to a paid model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't charge for the Web .
The experience that most users get sucks .
They are in IE on a PC and it sucks .
There are too many other sources that also suck to bother paying , with very rare exception.They should be making non-Web content to charge for .
For example , iPad apps , or eBooks , and so on .
And advertise that on your Web site.Think of a Sunday newspaper with a magazine in it .
Make the newspaper free ( Web ) , charge a low price for the magazine ( eBook ) .
Make the part you pay for downloadable and rich in photos and videos and audio .
Make the Web compete with that.The reason HBO worked was it was something n   e and different from free ad-supported TV .
They did n't try to take NBC to a paid model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't charge for the Web.
The experience that most users get sucks.
They are in IE on a PC and it sucks.
There are too many other sources that also suck to bother paying, with very rare exception.They should be making non-Web content to charge for.
For example, iPad apps, or eBooks, and so on.
And advertise that on your Web site.Think of a Sunday newspaper with a magazine in it.
Make the newspaper free (Web), charge a low price for the magazine (eBook).
Make the part you pay for downloadable and rich in photos and videos and audio.
Make the Web compete with that.The reason HBO worked was it was something née and different from free ad-supported TV.
They didn't try to take NBC to a paid model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642038</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269722940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to be joking. The Guardian is the same as Fox news, except spitting out propaganda for the Labour party. And I do mean propaganda, its not just bias towards left-wing politics, they blatantly lie to support labour policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to be joking .
The Guardian is the same as Fox news , except spitting out propaganda for the Labour party .
And I do mean propaganda , its not just bias towards left-wing politics , they blatantly lie to support labour policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to be joking.
The Guardian is the same as Fox news, except spitting out propaganda for the Labour party.
And I do mean propaganda, its not just bias towards left-wing politics, they blatantly lie to support labour policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31645404</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1269715080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I go to the Times weekly, just for Jeremy Clarkson's column. He has a monthly one at BBC as well, but a weekly dose is fun to read, but not worth paying that much for a subscription.</p><p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy\_clarkson/" title="timesonline.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy\_clarkson/</a> [timesonline.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I go to the Times weekly , just for Jeremy Clarkson 's column .
He has a monthly one at BBC as well , but a weekly dose is fun to read , but not worth paying that much for a subscription.http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy \ _clarkson/ [ timesonline.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go to the Times weekly, just for Jeremy Clarkson's column.
He has a monthly one at BBC as well, but a weekly dose is fun to read, but not worth paying that much for a subscription.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/jeremy\_clarkson/ [timesonline.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638456</id>
	<title>Tomorrow Never Dies</title>
	<author>kaigoh</author>
	<datestamp>1269693720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just waiting for MI6 and 007 to stop him again...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just waiting for MI6 and 007 to stop him again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just waiting for MI6 and 007 to stop him again...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638300</id>
	<title>They should value my attention</title>
	<author>solferino</author>
	<datestamp>1269691440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What Murdoch and the rest of the 'Content Kings' don't get is that content is no longer king.</p><p>These guys should be happy that they are getting my attention - that I'm literally paying them attention. You want me to pay money on top of me paying attention? Forget it. The whole world has a press now and there are millions of people out there - with interesting or intelligent or entertaining or titillating or whatever content - that would be just happy for me to paying them attention.</p><p>Murdoch seems to be attempting to hypnotise the public into thinking we need his stuff so badly we'll be prepared to pay for it. We don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What Murdoch and the rest of the 'Content Kings ' do n't get is that content is no longer king.These guys should be happy that they are getting my attention - that I 'm literally paying them attention .
You want me to pay money on top of me paying attention ?
Forget it .
The whole world has a press now and there are millions of people out there - with interesting or intelligent or entertaining or titillating or whatever content - that would be just happy for me to paying them attention.Murdoch seems to be attempting to hypnotise the public into thinking we need his stuff so badly we 'll be prepared to pay for it .
We do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Murdoch and the rest of the 'Content Kings' don't get is that content is no longer king.These guys should be happy that they are getting my attention - that I'm literally paying them attention.
You want me to pay money on top of me paying attention?
Forget it.
The whole world has a press now and there are millions of people out there - with interesting or intelligent or entertaining or titillating or whatever content - that would be just happy for me to paying them attention.Murdoch seems to be attempting to hypnotise the public into thinking we need his stuff so badly we'll be prepared to pay for it.
We don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638570</id>
	<title>Re:From 'anchor of civilization' to wacko webpage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269695580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finding the right price point is key. When the paywall for the wsj went up, I was suddenly a wsj customer. I now enjoy both the online *and* print version of this Murdoch property. For me the $2.60/week (roughly 2&pound;) was a great fit.</p><p>IOW, putting up a paywall earns Murdoch more, in my case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finding the right price point is key .
When the paywall for the wsj went up , I was suddenly a wsj customer .
I now enjoy both the online * and * print version of this Murdoch property .
For me the $ 2.60/week ( roughly 2   ) was a great fit.IOW , putting up a paywall earns Murdoch more , in my case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finding the right price point is key.
When the paywall for the wsj went up, I was suddenly a wsj customer.
I now enjoy both the online *and* print version of this Murdoch property.
For me the $2.60/week (roughly 2£) was a great fit.IOW, putting up a paywall earns Murdoch more, in my case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638314</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269691680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it is actually more than likely that it will work.<br>People will pay for things, especially at such low prices because 1 major unit of currency is usually seen by the brain as something easily disposable, whereas paying &pound;7 up-front for the whole week is less likely to happen because it has some sense of commitment towards it, and generally just being a larger number.</p><p>Although, If they had it at half the value, they would probably gain a much much larger group of readers.<br>50p for the usual news, &pound;1 for bigger news events, &pound;2 for exclusives, that would probably work.</p><p>Of course, there is going to be a huge amount of backlash and fights between the groups, almost certainly in-fighting too.<br>It is going to be a messy decade for online news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it is actually more than likely that it will work.People will pay for things , especially at such low prices because 1 major unit of currency is usually seen by the brain as something easily disposable , whereas paying   7 up-front for the whole week is less likely to happen because it has some sense of commitment towards it , and generally just being a larger number.Although , If they had it at half the value , they would probably gain a much much larger group of readers.50p for the usual news ,   1 for bigger news events ,   2 for exclusives , that would probably work.Of course , there is going to be a huge amount of backlash and fights between the groups , almost certainly in-fighting too.It is going to be a messy decade for online news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it is actually more than likely that it will work.People will pay for things, especially at such low prices because 1 major unit of currency is usually seen by the brain as something easily disposable, whereas paying £7 up-front for the whole week is less likely to happen because it has some sense of commitment towards it, and generally just being a larger number.Although, If they had it at half the value, they would probably gain a much much larger group of readers.50p for the usual news, £1 for bigger news events, £2 for exclusives, that would probably work.Of course, there is going to be a huge amount of backlash and fights between the groups, almost certainly in-fighting too.It is going to be a messy decade for online news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212</id>
	<title>8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1269690120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8 pounds a month, a lot less isn't it? But I think it is the 1 pound per day that people will indeed choke on.
</p><p>I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to. But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories. So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article. So I just wouldn't.
</p><p>And because I follow links to several sites, it is also not 1 buck per day, but maybe 20 bucks for all the different sites. And that does hurt, even if you take a monthly subscription.
</p><p>That is the biggest reason I think this will fail.
</p><p>People use the net different then a newspaper. When you take a newspaper subscription, you read it like a book. But when you browse the net, you go here you go there. Take in a page here, an article there. The problem isn't paying 1 subscription fee, it is paying dozens.
</p><p>Lets see, 1 euro for slashdot, 1 for tweakers, 1 for comics.com, 1 for penny-arcade, 1 for the bbc, 1 for the times, 1 for the new york times, etc etc. That is going to hurt pretty fast.
</p><p>True micro-payments would help, but the amounts would have to be truly tiny. As in a tenth of a cent for an article and that is never going to work.
</p><p>And anyway, I don't have a credit card and the only Americans who have ever heard of Global Collect are Sony (SOE is the only MMO company in the world to support iDeal (dutch banks) and other countries payment systems (this might have changed in recent years)). So how am I going to pay even if I wanted to. (Oh and for irony, supporting iDeal is cheaper per transaction then credit card payments).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 pounds a month , a lot less is n't it ?
But I think it is the 1 pound per day that people will indeed choke on .
I do n't really read news sites myself , I read stories that I found links to .
But I do n't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories .
So it would be NOT 1 pound per day , but 1 pound per article .
So I just would n't .
And because I follow links to several sites , it is also not 1 buck per day , but maybe 20 bucks for all the different sites .
And that does hurt , even if you take a monthly subscription .
That is the biggest reason I think this will fail .
People use the net different then a newspaper .
When you take a newspaper subscription , you read it like a book .
But when you browse the net , you go here you go there .
Take in a page here , an article there .
The problem is n't paying 1 subscription fee , it is paying dozens .
Lets see , 1 euro for slashdot , 1 for tweakers , 1 for comics.com , 1 for penny-arcade , 1 for the bbc , 1 for the times , 1 for the new york times , etc etc .
That is going to hurt pretty fast .
True micro-payments would help , but the amounts would have to be truly tiny .
As in a tenth of a cent for an article and that is never going to work .
And anyway , I do n't have a credit card and the only Americans who have ever heard of Global Collect are Sony ( SOE is the only MMO company in the world to support iDeal ( dutch banks ) and other countries payment systems ( this might have changed in recent years ) ) .
So how am I going to pay even if I wanted to .
( Oh and for irony , supporting iDeal is cheaper per transaction then credit card payments ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 pounds a month, a lot less isn't it?
But I think it is the 1 pound per day that people will indeed choke on.
I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to.
But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories.
So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article.
So I just wouldn't.
And because I follow links to several sites, it is also not 1 buck per day, but maybe 20 bucks for all the different sites.
And that does hurt, even if you take a monthly subscription.
That is the biggest reason I think this will fail.
People use the net different then a newspaper.
When you take a newspaper subscription, you read it like a book.
But when you browse the net, you go here you go there.
Take in a page here, an article there.
The problem isn't paying 1 subscription fee, it is paying dozens.
Lets see, 1 euro for slashdot, 1 for tweakers, 1 for comics.com, 1 for penny-arcade, 1 for the bbc, 1 for the times, 1 for the new york times, etc etc.
That is going to hurt pretty fast.
True micro-payments would help, but the amounts would have to be truly tiny.
As in a tenth of a cent for an article and that is never going to work.
And anyway, I don't have a credit card and the only Americans who have ever heard of Global Collect are Sony (SOE is the only MMO company in the world to support iDeal (dutch banks) and other countries payment systems (this might have changed in recent years)).
So how am I going to pay even if I wanted to.
(Oh and for irony, supporting iDeal is cheaper per transaction then credit card payments).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638500</id>
	<title>who is who</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1269694320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's put it this way:  Rupert Murdoch is not Grigori Perelman.</p><p>Agree / Disagree?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's put it this way : Rupert Murdoch is not Grigori Perelman.Agree / Disagree ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's put it this way:  Rupert Murdoch is not Grigori Perelman.Agree / Disagree?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638294</id>
	<title>Re:&pound;1 per day to access online news?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1269691380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the same as the cover price for the physical printed edition. Which is ridiculous- who in their right mind could justify paying the same for online data as they pay for printed/shipped/delivered media?</p><p>Surely the costs being lower should mean the price is lower, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the same as the cover price for the physical printed edition .
Which is ridiculous- who in their right mind could justify paying the same for online data as they pay for printed/shipped/delivered media ? Surely the costs being lower should mean the price is lower , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the same as the cover price for the physical printed edition.
Which is ridiculous- who in their right mind could justify paying the same for online data as they pay for printed/shipped/delivered media?Surely the costs being lower should mean the price is lower, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638954</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1269699960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Thankfully, the Guardian, which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories like News International's papers do (people often talk of the paper being liberal, which on its comments pages is largely true, but they do a good job of keeping it out of their news reporting)</p></div><p>That generally just means their political bent matches yours, so you don't notice it as much as in the papers you disagree with.  In 1992, the Scott Trust (The Guardian's owner) explicitly declared "remaining faithful to liberal tradition" as part of its central objective for The Guardian.  So it's not just "largely true"; it's part of the mission.</p><p>While US newspapers make a big palaver about their news reporting being politically neutral and objective, UK newspapers do not -- in the UK there is much greater recognition that the choice of <i>what news to report</i> is itself affected by the editor's political beliefs (what they consider important), so there can be no such thing as a politically neutral paper even if the articles are written in dry matter-of-fact language.  Rather than trying to pretend to be above all that, the UK papers are instead fairly open about their editorial biases, and it's well known which ones lean towards which readerships -- for example the famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Conflict\_of\_Interest#Quote" title="wikipedia.org">Yes Minister</a> [wikipedia.org] quote.  Similarly, where I used to work we often found ourselves commenting in the tea room "The Independent is leading with a story on global warming.  It must be Thursday."  In short, the UK papers care about <i>editorial independence</i> but not <i>neutrality</i>.</p><p>The exception, of course, is the BBC, which has a legislative requirement to portray a "balanced" view on any political matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , the Guardian , which has far superior journalism and does n't seek to ram politics down everyone 's throats in " news " stories like News International 's papers do ( people often talk of the paper being liberal , which on its comments pages is largely true , but they do a good job of keeping it out of their news reporting ) That generally just means their political bent matches yours , so you do n't notice it as much as in the papers you disagree with .
In 1992 , the Scott Trust ( The Guardian 's owner ) explicitly declared " remaining faithful to liberal tradition " as part of its central objective for The Guardian .
So it 's not just " largely true " ; it 's part of the mission.While US newspapers make a big palaver about their news reporting being politically neutral and objective , UK newspapers do not -- in the UK there is much greater recognition that the choice of what news to report is itself affected by the editor 's political beliefs ( what they consider important ) , so there can be no such thing as a politically neutral paper even if the articles are written in dry matter-of-fact language .
Rather than trying to pretend to be above all that , the UK papers are instead fairly open about their editorial biases , and it 's well known which ones lean towards which readerships -- for example the famous Yes Minister [ wikipedia.org ] quote .
Similarly , where I used to work we often found ourselves commenting in the tea room " The Independent is leading with a story on global warming .
It must be Thursday .
" In short , the UK papers care about editorial independence but not neutrality.The exception , of course , is the BBC , which has a legislative requirement to portray a " balanced " view on any political matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, the Guardian, which has far superior journalism and doesn't seek to ram politics down everyone's throats in "news" stories like News International's papers do (people often talk of the paper being liberal, which on its comments pages is largely true, but they do a good job of keeping it out of their news reporting)That generally just means their political bent matches yours, so you don't notice it as much as in the papers you disagree with.
In 1992, the Scott Trust (The Guardian's owner) explicitly declared "remaining faithful to liberal tradition" as part of its central objective for The Guardian.
So it's not just "largely true"; it's part of the mission.While US newspapers make a big palaver about their news reporting being politically neutral and objective, UK newspapers do not -- in the UK there is much greater recognition that the choice of what news to report is itself affected by the editor's political beliefs (what they consider important), so there can be no such thing as a politically neutral paper even if the articles are written in dry matter-of-fact language.
Rather than trying to pretend to be above all that, the UK papers are instead fairly open about their editorial biases, and it's well known which ones lean towards which readerships -- for example the famous Yes Minister [wikipedia.org] quote.
Similarly, where I used to work we often found ourselves commenting in the tea room "The Independent is leading with a story on global warming.
It must be Thursday.
"  In short, the UK papers care about editorial independence but not neutrality.The exception, of course, is the BBC, which has a legislative requirement to portray a "balanced" view on any political matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641904</id>
	<title>Re: 5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269722100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Normally, when a website does a bait-and-switch and starts charging users, the website would be lucky to retain 1\% of its users. However, NewsCorp already has the goodwill of a big chunk of the UK newspaper readership and a big chunk of the UK television viewership. The amount of money spent on the latter is insane. Households are willing to pay 60 pound per month for subscriptions to sports channels. When you include broadband and mobile telephone contracts, you'll find it fairly common to find households that spend more than 140 pound per month on telecommunications. When you add the compulsory UK television licence, that's more than 1,800 pound per year.</p><p>So, offering exclusive sports previews, analysis and highlights for 24 pound per year would be a trivial upsell. And NewsCorp can afford to cross-promote this on a sustained basis. NewsCorp's television and newspaper companies regularly cross-promote each other - and disparage competitors on a daily basis. For example, The Sun includes one or two negative articles about the BBC every day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally , when a website does a bait-and-switch and starts charging users , the website would be lucky to retain 1 \ % of its users .
However , NewsCorp already has the goodwill of a big chunk of the UK newspaper readership and a big chunk of the UK television viewership .
The amount of money spent on the latter is insane .
Households are willing to pay 60 pound per month for subscriptions to sports channels .
When you include broadband and mobile telephone contracts , you 'll find it fairly common to find households that spend more than 140 pound per month on telecommunications .
When you add the compulsory UK television licence , that 's more than 1,800 pound per year.So , offering exclusive sports previews , analysis and highlights for 24 pound per year would be a trivial upsell .
And NewsCorp can afford to cross-promote this on a sustained basis .
NewsCorp 's television and newspaper companies regularly cross-promote each other - and disparage competitors on a daily basis .
For example , The Sun includes one or two negative articles about the BBC every day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normally, when a website does a bait-and-switch and starts charging users, the website would be lucky to retain 1\% of its users.
However, NewsCorp already has the goodwill of a big chunk of the UK newspaper readership and a big chunk of the UK television viewership.
The amount of money spent on the latter is insane.
Households are willing to pay 60 pound per month for subscriptions to sports channels.
When you include broadband and mobile telephone contracts, you'll find it fairly common to find households that spend more than 140 pound per month on telecommunications.
When you add the compulsory UK television licence, that's more than 1,800 pound per year.So, offering exclusive sports previews, analysis and highlights for 24 pound per year would be a trivial upsell.
And NewsCorp can afford to cross-promote this on a sustained basis.
NewsCorp's television and newspaper companies regularly cross-promote each other - and disparage competitors on a daily basis.
For example, The Sun includes one or two negative articles about the BBC every day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638366</id>
	<title>Re:The Guardian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269692340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they're currently in a real anti-BA mode - and <i>coincidently</i> their CEO is to take over one of BA's main competitors, EasyJet in September. You'll find posts stating this fact on their webpage mysteriously removed by moderators within minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're currently in a real anti-BA mode - and coincidently their CEO is to take over one of BA 's main competitors , EasyJet in September .
You 'll find posts stating this fact on their webpage mysteriously removed by moderators within minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're currently in a real anti-BA mode - and coincidently their CEO is to take over one of BA's main competitors, EasyJet in September.
You'll find posts stating this fact on their webpage mysteriously removed by moderators within minutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638038</id>
	<title>Wish them luck! (seriously!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269687660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is a good concept, though, perhaps a bit spendy. I'd rather see it billed in fractions of a cent pr. page load.</p><p>All the people who filter out ads... you should be thankful the industry is trying to find alternate streams of revenue!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a good concept , though , perhaps a bit spendy .
I 'd rather see it billed in fractions of a cent pr .
page load.All the people who filter out ads... you should be thankful the industry is trying to find alternate streams of revenue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a good concept, though, perhaps a bit spendy.
I'd rather see it billed in fractions of a cent pr.
page load.All the people who filter out ads... you should be thankful the industry is trying to find alternate streams of revenue!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638744</id>
	<title>Pay Per View</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sooner Murdoch makes ALL his media pay per view, the better.</p><p>I for one welcome the eventual disappearance of that rancid old goat and his spawn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sooner Murdoch makes ALL his media pay per view , the better.I for one welcome the eventual disappearance of that rancid old goat and his spawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sooner Murdoch makes ALL his media pay per view, the better.I for one welcome the eventual disappearance of that rancid old goat and his spawn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639550</id>
	<title>Re:The market pays what a service is worth.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1269705840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has excellent reporting and analysis. The WSJ is worth the price that its owners charge, so I willingly pay for a 1-year subscription to the WSJ.</p></div><p>I've heard that the Journal's analysis and business reporting has suffered since Murdoch bought it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , the " Wall Street Journal " ( WSJ ) has excellent reporting and analysis .
The WSJ is worth the price that its owners charge , so I willingly pay for a 1-year subscription to the WSJ.I 've heard that the Journal 's analysis and business reporting has suffered since Murdoch bought it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ) has excellent reporting and analysis.
The WSJ is worth the price that its owners charge, so I willingly pay for a 1-year subscription to the WSJ.I've heard that the Journal's analysis and business reporting has suffered since Murdoch bought it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638734</id>
	<title>Re:8 pounds a month</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1269697920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to. But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories. So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article. So I just wouldn't.</p> </div><p>That's the problem with paywalls these days...  Most folks don't just go to a single site for their news.</p><p>Personally, I gather my information from a variety of aggregators like Slashdot, Reddit, Google News, and an assortment of blogs.  I don't just go to a single news site and read everything they have to offer.</p><p>So I'd have to pay to access a half-dozen sites a day, if not more.</p><p>I suppose that maybe this is the intent...  Make it too expensive to shop around for your information.  Make it cheaper to go to a single source.  So you don't read just a single article from The Times, you read pretty much everything there.  And I assume there'll still be advertising all over the site.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really read news sites myself , I read stories that I found links to .
But I do n't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories .
So it would be NOT 1 pound per day , but 1 pound per article .
So I just would n't .
That 's the problem with paywalls these days... Most folks do n't just go to a single site for their news.Personally , I gather my information from a variety of aggregators like Slashdot , Reddit , Google News , and an assortment of blogs .
I do n't just go to a single news site and read everything they have to offer.So I 'd have to pay to access a half-dozen sites a day , if not more.I suppose that maybe this is the intent... Make it too expensive to shop around for your information .
Make it cheaper to go to a single source .
So you do n't read just a single article from The Times , you read pretty much everything there .
And I assume there 'll still be advertising all over the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really read news sites myself, I read stories that I found links to.
But I don't really go to a newspaper site and just read all the stories.
So it would be NOT 1 pound per day, but 1 pound per article.
So I just wouldn't.
That's the problem with paywalls these days...  Most folks don't just go to a single site for their news.Personally, I gather my information from a variety of aggregators like Slashdot, Reddit, Google News, and an assortment of blogs.
I don't just go to a single news site and read everything they have to offer.So I'd have to pay to access a half-dozen sites a day, if not more.I suppose that maybe this is the intent...  Make it too expensive to shop around for your information.
Make it cheaper to go to a single source.
So you don't read just a single article from The Times, you read pretty much everything there.
And I assume there'll still be advertising all over the site.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642778</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269685500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sure as hell am not going to miss anything published by Rupert Murdoch.
<br> <br>
Seriously though, It seems like he is hell bent on destroying all of his web properties...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sure as hell am not going to miss anything published by Rupert Murdoch .
Seriously though , It seems like he is hell bent on destroying all of his web properties.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sure as hell am not going to miss anything published by Rupert Murdoch.
Seriously though, It seems like he is hell bent on destroying all of his web properties...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639740</id>
	<title>Why pay for trash???</title>
	<author>Mantis8</author>
	<datestamp>1269707400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know I will never pay money just to get a bit of news, which is mostly irrelevant crime stories anyways.  Not to mention all the political scandals, celebrity gossip and other trash that I don't need to know, don't want to know, and is usually not my business anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know I will never pay money just to get a bit of news , which is mostly irrelevant crime stories anyways .
Not to mention all the political scandals , celebrity gossip and other trash that I do n't need to know , do n't want to know , and is usually not my business anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know I will never pay money just to get a bit of news, which is mostly irrelevant crime stories anyways.
Not to mention all the political scandals, celebrity gossip and other trash that I don't need to know, don't want to know, and is usually not my business anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638710</id>
	<title>Re:5\%... possible?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269697560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> That price covers the raw materials, the printing and overheads, the distribution and the retailer's profit margin</p></div><p>No it doesn't.  Most of the cost of printing and distributing the paper edition comes from advertisers, and advertisers pay a lot more to be in the print edition than the online edition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That price covers the raw materials , the printing and overheads , the distribution and the retailer 's profit marginNo it does n't .
Most of the cost of printing and distributing the paper edition comes from advertisers , and advertisers pay a lot more to be in the print edition than the online edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That price covers the raw materials, the printing and overheads, the distribution and the retailer's profit marginNo it doesn't.
Most of the cost of printing and distributing the paper edition comes from advertisers, and advertisers pay a lot more to be in the print edition than the online edition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639964</id>
	<title>playing with matches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heck, I'd gladly pay money to keep it from showing up in my search results.</p></div><p>Now, now, don't give him any ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heck , I 'd gladly pay money to keep it from showing up in my search results.Now , now , do n't give him any ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heck, I'd gladly pay money to keep it from showing up in my search results.Now, now, don't give him any ideas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638846</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269699000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolute idiots.  News is free.....duhhhhhh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute idiots .
News is free.....duhhhhhh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute idiots.
News is free.....duhhhhhh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640064</id>
	<title>Journalism 2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Journalism has always been about impressing a point of view to readers, having an axe to grind. Attaining that is a hard and creative (not necessarily affirmative term in this context) work which needs skilled professionals, who need to be paid. Just communicating facts, without nannying readers, is easy and could be automated (press announcements are made by sources who are already paid by their respective organisations). Opinions are created interactively these days, in public forums such as this one. I prefer it this way, as it is essentially with more democratic potential then the old way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Journalism has always been about impressing a point of view to readers , having an axe to grind .
Attaining that is a hard and creative ( not necessarily affirmative term in this context ) work which needs skilled professionals , who need to be paid .
Just communicating facts , without nannying readers , is easy and could be automated ( press announcements are made by sources who are already paid by their respective organisations ) .
Opinions are created interactively these days , in public forums such as this one .
I prefer it this way , as it is essentially with more democratic potential then the old way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Journalism has always been about impressing a point of view to readers, having an axe to grind.
Attaining that is a hard and creative (not necessarily affirmative term in this context) work which needs skilled professionals, who need to be paid.
Just communicating facts, without nannying readers, is easy and could be automated (press announcements are made by sources who are already paid by their respective organisations).
Opinions are created interactively these days, in public forums such as this one.
I prefer it this way, as it is essentially with more democratic potential then the old way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31646696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31652198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31645404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31646022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31644232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_0356211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31646022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31637958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31645404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638508
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638212
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641424
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31652198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31641904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31644232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31646696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638292
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31642038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31640276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31638506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_0356211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_0356211.31639968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
