"[Greater than] 5% shareholders: America Online, Inc. 14.3 % National Broadcasting Company, Inc 8.5 % DIRECTV, Inc. (10) 7.4 % Sony Corporation of America 5.5 %"
(I have dropped some info here for space purposes.)
Hard for the media companies to sue when three of the biggest are four of the five largest shareholders. Better to sue the competition.
Uh, read the parent. I was replying to the post that stated there was an implied contract when you bought something in a retail store. I *believe* that specific legislation (ie. the UCC under Sales of Goods, and, yes, laws against counterfeiting - rtf parent) applies in this situation, not contract law at all.
I think I pretty clearly said that an 'implied contract' is not a legal contract (well, 'not enforceable under the law' means that to me.) By implied contract I mean more of a societal agreement (and no, I don't mean in the legal sense.) I know it's unfashionable now in the US to have any sort of ethics or etiquette that isn't written into law, but personally I think we would do better to have fewer laws and more 'implicit contracts.'
I agree, the copyright argument is obviated by the fair use exemption.
I am pretty sure that the courts have found that making copies of music for friends is legal, it's the making them available to everyone and his uncle that is illegal.
I agree there is an implied contract. I don't think it is enforceable under the law, however. What is enforceable is the law itself, in this case probably the Universal Commercial Code and the laws against counterfeiting. Of course, in the US (and other countries that have an English legal system) since the law is more than just what is written down (it includes the Common law, going back centuries) there are probably some things we take for granted that aren't exactly codified.
The implied contract in this case is more of an ethical obligation to pay, in some fashion, for what you are getting. It's pretty obvious that the networks aren't giving away content for free and that the way they are getting paid is by showing you the ads. That contract is neither enforceable under contract law or any other law, because there probably isn't any that adequately covers it. This may mean that the government has to make a law, as is often the case when people start to wholesale break implied contracts.
Of course, the 30 million households in the US that choose not to even pay for cable-TV might see it differently. I bet they like the fact that they don't have to pay money for every show they watch.
I doubt Hollywood is going to argue that they can enforce an implied contract. That would be silly. Implied contracts are for ethical use, not legal use.
Hollywood will most probably claim that recording their show, removing the commercials, and then showing it is copyright infringement. That argument is, well, arguable, although it probably fails the fair use defense.
I doubt Hollywood is going to try and make skipping commercials illegal, they just want to make the sale of hardware that skips commercial illegal. An analogy is between sharing songs with friends (legal) and putting up Napster (seemingly illegal as of this writing, although probably changing daily.)
Is it ironic that if everyone gets a Replay4000 and sets commercial skipping to on, TV stations won't show commercials anymore (no money in it) so the technology of commercial skipping will be useless?
Of course, the on-air stations won't show TV anymore (no money in that either), so maybe it's a moot point.
I guess we could go to the model that the BBC would like to get away from - having the government charge a 'TV tax' to everyone with a TV. In fact, if the BBC manages to free itself from government dominance, maybe we can buy those antenna detection trucks they have to implement the tax here!
I think we know that freedom comes with a price: less security. Security comes with a price too: less freedom.
In the US, this idea was a commonplace before the Revolution. Anybody have any idea as to its earlier origins? (I'm sure it was bandied about during the English Civil War.)
UN Peacekeepers were sent in to Scandinavia today to avert the escalation of an increasingly bitter round of invective between representatives of the area's countries. Tensions began to abate, however, as the traditional taunting gave way to the relatively modern sport of "USA-Bashing."
This is a good point. In the magazine world, publishers assume a "pass-around" rate: for every copy sold, several people read it. This rate is different for each type of magazine (ie. computer mags have a higher pass-around rate than business mags.)
The magazines use this number to get higher ad revenue ("well, sure we only sell 100,000 copies, but 500,000 people read it.")
You would think TV would do the same thing. Passing around TV shows would be an entirely new distribution network, increasing ad revenues.
Phone meetings? The annual meeting in Vegas and the annual meeting in Bermuda (another sub that held some foreign assets) were the high points of my wife's year. She would have killed me if I suggested phone meetings.
Unfortuneately, the tax advantages work the other way when the subsidiaries in question are *losing* money:).
Nevada is like the Bermuda of the US, tax-wise:-). I think it must be Delaware's longer history of corporate friendliness that gives the lawyers comfort. Interestingly, there was an article in the WSJ yesterday noting that Delaware judges were starting to backslide a bit in their race to the bottom.
My company once had a subsidiary incorporated in Nevada, for tax reasons. Had to go to Vegas once a year for the annual meeting. Those were the days.
Well, it looks like Microsoft paid $2.158 billion in taxes in 2001 (that's *paid*, tax expense was $3.804 billion, but that's a pretty much meaningless accounting entry given the $2 billion in tax benefit that MS got because of the stock options it issued.) That doesn't include the taxes paid by and on behalf of the employees of the company.
But, offsetting the amount the US government pays against the anmount of tax MS pays assumes that without the US government, MS would be unprofitable. That is probably not true.
What does make sense it to say that whenever the US government buys something, it gets back 35% of the pre-tax contribution to income of that item. Since MS's costs are not a direct function of their revenue (ie. they are mainly fixed costs), we can assume that the US government gets back about 35% of what it pays in licenses.
Perhaps you are arguing that MS is too big to fail? That, like Boeing, it needs government patronage to survive? That would be scary indeed.
In short, if a consumer reads/hears a constant barrage of ads... Then nine times out of ten, that's where the consumer spending and financial investments go.
In the advertising business they have an old saying: "Good advertising kills bad products faster than bad advertising."
Advertising, in general, is meant to get someone to try something or to remember to buy again if they liked the product. Advertising can't make bad products good, and word of mouth is much stronger than a TV ad (thus the mostly unsuccessful attempts at "grass-roots" marketing.)
In support I cite the Pets.com sock puppet and the Taco Bell chihuahua, two of the best advertising campaigns of the '90s from every point of view except sales of products. Nothing would have sold those products, not because of bad advertising, but because they were bad products.
Actually, Delaware does have corporation taxes. In fact, the corporation taxes on the 300,000 companies that are incorporated there mean that there is no sales tax. Companies incorporate in Delaware because the corporation law there is very favorable and the chancery courts (courts that deal with corporate matters) are knowledgable and relatively speedy.
Well, you seem to have forgotten the Decree of Gratian, a canonical law enacted in 1140AD that forbade the charging of interest. This decree was generally accepted as Church law (the Catholic church, that is.) As the Catholic church was the universal one in Western Europe at the time, this was pretty much a blanket prohibition. Curiously, this rule was not applied to Jews, probably because forbidding interest entirely would have made money-lending impractical which would have had dire consequences for many kings, princes and merchants.
Luther also condemned charging interest although Calvin permitted it (but he did bar interest charged to the needy, which has some support from the Bible - Luke VI, 34-35.)
The Catholic church, at least, later acknowledged that interest was allowable, sometime in the early to mid 19th century.
Hey man, we love you Canadians. Despite our differences 190 years ago, we think you're our best friends in the world. If we forget to say so sometimes, we're sorry. Come on down anytime and we'll give you a big hug.
You may already pay $50 per month for your TV connection and some of the content. You also probably get another $50 per month (I'm guessing here, but see below for my calculation) of advertising embedded in the shows you watch. When those advertisements go away, who do you think will pay that extra $50 per month? Do you really think the media companies will simply forgo it?
Calculation of revenue per month per viewer: Assumptions:
CPM per ad = $80
Ads per hour = 20
Hours watched = 30 per month per viewer
So, revenue = CPM / 1000 x Ads per Hour x Hours per Month =
$80/1000 x 20 x 30 = $48 per viewer per month.
Most of the magazine circulation audit companies(ie. the ABC, Audit Bureau of Circulation) keep track of how many copies are sold versus given away. Advertisers care much more for people who buy the magazine and will pay higher rates for those people. Advertisers care because people who have paid for the magazine are more likely to read it and thus see their ads.
The advertising is usually enough to pay for the printing and distribution. The sales price does help to cover the fixed cost, though (the content and plant.) That's why people send you ads to get you to subscribe to magazines at cut-rates: even for free the publisher would make money on each additional copy - if the higher ad-rates apply. The companies that sell you cut-rate magazine subscriptions keep pretty much all of the money you pay: it doesn't go to the magazine. (This, by the way, is an extremely lucrative business, if you're a dirty rotten direct mail genius.)
Note that there are also very many successful publications that are given away free. If you're on this board and working you probably get some of them: Network World, eWeek, etc. And these have pretty low subscription bases to make up their fixed costs on. They work because advertisers pay even more for the business-to-business market and for a very targetted group of readers.
Is this a trick question? Consumer Reports is put out by a non-profit, donation supported organization, Consumer's Union. They are like PBS.
Ms. magazine is owned by an LLC owned by a "consortium of feminists" (from their website.) Can't tell for sure, but it doesn't sound like they are in it for the money, either.
The revolutionary war started years before even the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Boston Tea Party was 1774, remember. The Constitution, the beginning of the real new government (the Confederation was more like the UN than a government,) wasn't signed until 1787.
Well, it's pretty obvious that this isn't the course the US has taken. The Federalist papers were newspaper articles, not law, and the views of some of the framers of the Constitution have not always been followed as interpretation.
Ironically, Madison, the author of most of the Federalist papers, was one of the prime movers behind the Bill of Rights, even though he ascribed to the above. Conversely, Hamilton was one of the prime movers behind the "necessary and proper" expansion that has led us to our current big government - the exact oposite of what he argues above. Where was the authority for the Bank of America? (Or the Louisiana purchase, authorized by Jefferson, one of the strongest proponents of the above.)
You can argue that we should govern as described in F.P. 84, but I don't think you can argue that we do.
Slashdot Mirror
Check the shareholder lists. From their proxy:
"[Greater than] 5% shareholders:
America Online, Inc. 14.3 %
National Broadcasting Company, Inc 8.5 %
DIRECTV, Inc. (10) 7.4 %
Sony Corporation of America 5.5 %"
(I have dropped some info here for space purposes.)
Hard for the media companies to sue when three of the biggest are four of the five largest shareholders. Better to sue the competition.
Uh, read the parent. I was replying to the post that stated there was an implied contract when you bought something in a retail store. I *believe* that specific legislation (ie. the UCC under Sales of Goods, and, yes, laws against counterfeiting - rtf parent) applies in this situation, not contract law at all.
I think I pretty clearly said that an 'implied contract' is not a legal contract (well, 'not enforceable under the law' means that to me.) By implied contract I mean more of a societal agreement (and no, I don't mean in the legal sense.) I know it's unfashionable now in the US to have any sort of ethics or etiquette that isn't written into law, but personally I think we would do better to have fewer laws and more 'implicit contracts.'
I agree, the copyright argument is obviated by the fair use exemption.
I am pretty sure that the courts have found that making copies of music for friends is legal, it's the making them available to everyone and his uncle that is illegal.
I agree there is an implied contract. I don't think it is enforceable under the law, however. What is enforceable is the law itself, in this case probably the Universal Commercial Code and the laws against counterfeiting. Of course, in the US (and other countries that have an English legal system) since the law is more than just what is written down (it includes the Common law, going back centuries) there are probably some things we take for granted that aren't exactly codified.
The implied contract in this case is more of an ethical obligation to pay, in some fashion, for what you are getting. It's pretty obvious that the networks aren't giving away content for free and that the way they are getting paid is by showing you the ads. That contract is neither enforceable under contract law or any other law, because there probably isn't any that adequately covers it. This may mean that the government has to make a law, as is often the case when people start to wholesale break implied contracts.
Of course, the 30 million households in the US that choose not to even pay for cable-TV might see it differently. I bet they like the fact that they don't have to pay money for every show they watch.
I doubt Hollywood is going to argue that they can enforce an implied contract. That would be silly. Implied contracts are for ethical use, not legal use.
Hollywood will most probably claim that recording their show, removing the commercials, and then showing it is copyright infringement. That argument is, well, arguable, although it probably fails the fair use defense.
I doubt Hollywood is going to try and make skipping commercials illegal, they just want to make the sale of hardware that skips commercial illegal. An analogy is between sharing songs with friends (legal) and putting up Napster (seemingly illegal as of this writing, although probably changing daily.)
Is it ironic that if everyone gets a Replay4000 and sets commercial skipping to on, TV stations won't show commercials anymore (no money in it) so the technology of commercial skipping will be useless?
Of course, the on-air stations won't show TV anymore (no money in that either), so maybe it's a moot point.
I guess we could go to the model that the BBC would like to get away from - having the government charge a 'TV tax' to everyone with a TV. In fact, if the BBC manages to free itself from government dominance, maybe we can buy those antenna detection trucks they have to implement the tax here!
Liberty, security. Liberty, security.
I think we know that freedom comes with a price: less security. Security comes with a price too: less freedom.
In the US, this idea was a commonplace before the Revolution. Anybody have any idea as to its earlier origins? (I'm sure it was bandied about during the English Civil War.)
UN Peacekeepers were sent in to Scandinavia today to avert the escalation of an increasingly bitter round of invective between representatives of the area's countries. Tensions began to abate, however, as the traditional taunting gave way to the relatively modern sport of "USA-Bashing."
This is a good point. In the magazine world, publishers assume a "pass-around" rate: for every copy sold, several people read it. This rate is different for each type of magazine (ie. computer mags have a higher pass-around rate than business mags.)
The magazines use this number to get higher ad revenue ("well, sure we only sell 100,000 copies, but 500,000 people read it.")
You would think TV would do the same thing. Passing around TV shows would be an entirely new distribution network, increasing ad revenues.
Unless you use those damn Tivos to skip the ads.
Phone meetings? The annual meeting in Vegas and the annual meeting in Bermuda (another sub that held some foreign assets) were the high points of my wife's year. She would have killed me if I suggested phone meetings.
:).
Unfortuneately, the tax advantages work the other way when the subsidiaries in question are *losing* money
Nevada is like the Bermuda of the US, tax-wise :-). I think it must be Delaware's longer history of corporate friendliness that gives the lawyers comfort. Interestingly, there was an article in the WSJ yesterday noting that Delaware judges were starting to backslide a bit in their race to the bottom.
My company once had a subsidiary incorporated in Nevada, for tax reasons. Had to go to Vegas once a year for the annual meeting. Those were the days.
Well, it looks like Microsoft paid $2.158 billion in taxes in 2001 (that's *paid*, tax expense was $3.804 billion, but that's a pretty much meaningless accounting entry given the $2 billion in tax benefit that MS got because of the stock options it issued.) That doesn't include the taxes paid by and on behalf of the employees of the company.
But, offsetting the amount the US government pays against the anmount of tax MS pays assumes that without the US government, MS would be unprofitable. That is probably not true.
What does make sense it to say that whenever the US government buys something, it gets back 35% of the pre-tax contribution to income of that item. Since MS's costs are not a direct function of their revenue (ie. they are mainly fixed costs), we can assume that the US government gets back about 35% of what it pays in licenses.
Perhaps you are arguing that MS is too big to fail? That, like Boeing, it needs government patronage to survive? That would be scary indeed.
In short, if a consumer reads/hears a constant barrage of ads ... Then nine times out of ten, that's where the consumer spending and financial investments go.
In the advertising business they have an old saying: "Good advertising kills bad products faster than bad advertising."
Advertising, in general, is meant to get someone to try something or to remember to buy again if they liked the product. Advertising can't make bad products good, and word of mouth is much stronger than a TV ad (thus the mostly unsuccessful attempts at "grass-roots" marketing.)
In support I cite the Pets.com sock puppet and the Taco Bell chihuahua, two of the best advertising campaigns of the '90s from every point of view except sales of products. Nothing would have sold those products, not because of bad advertising, but because they were bad products.
Actually, Delaware does have corporation taxes. In fact, the corporation taxes on the 300,000 companies that are incorporated there mean that there is no sales tax. Companies incorporate in Delaware because the corporation law there is very favorable and the chancery courts (courts that deal with corporate matters) are knowledgable and relatively speedy.
Well, you seem to have forgotten the Decree of Gratian, a canonical law enacted in 1140AD that forbade the charging of interest. This decree was generally accepted as Church law (the Catholic church, that is.) As the Catholic church was the universal one in Western Europe at the time, this was pretty much a blanket prohibition. Curiously, this rule was not applied to Jews, probably because forbidding interest entirely would have made money-lending impractical which would have had dire consequences for many kings, princes and merchants.
Luther also condemned charging interest although Calvin permitted it (but he did bar interest charged to the needy, which has some support from the Bible - Luke VI, 34-35.)
The Catholic church, at least, later acknowledged that interest was allowable, sometime in the early to mid 19th century.
Hey man, we love you Canadians. Despite our differences 190 years ago, we think you're our best friends in the world. If we forget to say so sometimes, we're sorry. Come on down anytime and we'll give you a big hug.
America
You may already pay $50 per month for your TV connection and some of the content. You also probably get another $50 per month (I'm guessing here, but see below for my calculation) of advertising embedded in the shows you watch. When those advertisements go away, who do you think will pay that extra $50 per month? Do you really think the media companies will simply forgo it?
Calculation of revenue per month per viewer:
Assumptions:
CPM per ad = $80
Ads per hour = 20
Hours watched = 30 per month per viewer
So, revenue = CPM / 1000 x Ads per Hour x Hours per Month =
$80/1000 x 20 x 30 = $48 per viewer per month.
Check the free-newspaper war in Europe right now. Companies are fighting tooth and nail to be the first to give away newspapers.
One article here.
Maybe you should go back and get that MBA.
Most of the magazine circulation audit companies(ie. the ABC, Audit Bureau of Circulation) keep track of how many copies are sold versus given away. Advertisers care much more for people who buy the magazine and will pay higher rates for those people. Advertisers care because people who have paid for the magazine are more likely to read it and thus see their ads.
The advertising is usually enough to pay for the printing and distribution. The sales price does help to cover the fixed cost, though (the content and plant.) That's why people send you ads to get you to subscribe to magazines at cut-rates: even for free the publisher would make money on each additional copy - if the higher ad-rates apply. The companies that sell you cut-rate magazine subscriptions keep pretty much all of the money you pay: it doesn't go to the magazine. (This, by the way, is an extremely lucrative business, if you're a dirty rotten direct mail genius.)
Note that there are also very many successful publications that are given away free. If you're on this board and working you probably get some of them: Network World, eWeek, etc. And these have pretty low subscription bases to make up their fixed costs on. They work because advertisers pay even more for the business-to-business market and for a very targetted group of readers.
Is this a trick question? Consumer Reports is put out by a non-profit, donation supported organization, Consumer's Union. They are like PBS.
Ms. magazine is owned by an LLC owned by a "consortium of feminists" (from their website.) Can't tell for sure, but it doesn't sound like they are in it for the money, either.
Can you 'prove' security? I thought this was one of those stopping problem things: unprovable.
But, then, I am a little out of date.
The revolutionary war started years before even the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Boston Tea Party was 1774, remember. The Constitution, the beginning of the real new government (the Confederation was more like the UN than a government,) wasn't signed until 1787.
Well, it's pretty obvious that this isn't the course the US has taken. The Federalist papers were newspaper articles, not law, and the views of some of the framers of the Constitution have not always been followed as interpretation.
Ironically, Madison, the author of most of the Federalist papers, was one of the prime movers behind the Bill of Rights, even though he ascribed to the above. Conversely, Hamilton was one of the prime movers behind the "necessary and proper" expansion that has led us to our current big government - the exact oposite of what he argues above. Where was the authority for the Bank of America? (Or the Louisiana purchase, authorized by Jefferson, one of the strongest proponents of the above.)
You can argue that we should govern as described in F.P. 84, but I don't think you can argue that we do.
Actually the crew of the ships in Boston harbor were not harmed (not even touched in fact.) The only damage was to the tea.