This isn't about what would best serve the COMPANY.
It's about what would best serve the shareholders.
Period.
My point was that shareholders may have differing opinions about what would best serve them. I used myself as an anecdotal example: when I buy stock in a company I become interested in the long term performance of that company- it would not be in my best interests as a shareholder to see a spike in my share price at the expense of the company going down the toilet.
What PROMISE can you make for tomorrow that will be worth more than cash today?
How about a lot more cash tomorrow? That is after all what investing is. I give you a little of my money in exchange for part of a company that will grow over time. If all you want is cash now then keep your cash and don't buy stock.
I would point out that I am not trying to argue for the managing ability of the CEO. It may be that selling to MicroSoft would have been better for the long term interests of Yahoo. All that I am saying is that it is very possible for the CEO of Yahoo to believe that he acted responsibly without the egocentrism or juvenile hatred that you accuse him of.
I would agree with your point if Yang said himself that he didn't sell because he hates MicroSoft personally. I never read that.
Wait... Are you trying to say that 911 is a vehicle of free speech? If the 911 operator didn't answer it would be a violation of my rights? That having a 911 operator proves that I have a right to an audience?
That is an interesting choice of words. You are presenting this opinion as fact where I believe there is room for many other interpretations. There are a lot ways that taking the deal could have been the wrong thing to do.
It was only guaranteed to be the "right thing" if you define the "right thing" as "maximizing short term stock price gains". There are many other ways that the "right thing" could be defined where that deal may or may not have been better. Things like "Maintaining reasonable profit growth for the next 50 years." or even "Providing a work environment that reduces employee attrition". I'm not saying that MS is necessarily bad at these things but a CEO could definitely make a case that the company would be better served by staying independent.
I personally never invest in companies that have a history of making decisions where the "right thing" is defined as "maximizing short term stock price gains". When you do that you're not building anything you're just gambling.
Oh sure we learned a lot about computer architecture and digital logic but nothing useful about how to actually maintain a PC! There was nothing about how to install more memory or troubleshoot a bad power supply. We never even opened a computer case in a class!
I guess I'm not qualified to work as a computer technician- I'll just have to settle for making twice as much as a software engineer.:(
Of course I do know how to build and maintain a computer- it's really easy and no classes were required. It is handy at home but useless at work of course.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point that MS and Yahoo should be taken seriously but this was funny:
people seem to enjoy using a OS on cheap hardware... Oh and plays the latest games! then
Sorry bro, I'm into computers... Not toys. Your arguments for windows are that it is cheap and plays games and then you discredit everything else as toys? I agreed with you all the way up to that final statement.
It seems like you are thinking about this backwards.
Software companies invented non-transferable licenses so they could sell normal licenses for more. It's all artificial. This ruling states that there is no such thing as a non-transferable license.
If software manufacturers decided to keep their old pricing scheme based on a lie that's their choice of course but I suspect customers would be less willing to accept it.
In the end they will no doubt simply invent some other artificial mechanism to justify higher prices that will work just as well as the last mechanism they invented.
I see your point, however, I'm afraid we have devolved into an argument over semantics.
It isn't necessary to show you a law that prohibits a monopoly but just as you indicated there are laws that prohibit monopoly abuses. Or you could say in other words that there are laws that try to prohibit abusive monopolies. Obviously, in the mind of some, once a monopoly engages in illegal abusive practices it can be described as an illegal monopoly. It's just a matter of wording and the original poster's choice of words is perfectly valid and does not in fact make him look like an idiot.
My argument is not that monopolies are illegal but rather that the original poster's wording in no way warranted the aggressively rude language you used in response.
A monopoly can be ruled illegal if it is abused. Microsoft was convicted of abusing its monopoly so it is appropriate to clarify that their monopoly is technically of the illegal variety.
You should be more careful before throwing insults around- it has the potential to backfire.
I agree that Google is not perfect- I just don't think they are malicious.
I should also add that I do think the filtering is wrong but I don't feel that it is Google's fault but China's. Defying the government order to filter would indeed be heroic- but complying with it does not in my mind make them accomplices.
It is obvious that your opinion of Google differs from mine. That is fine. My post was about my opinion and no one else's.
I will, however, defend my opinion with more of my own opinions.
They started down the path when they started filtering your email for targeted advertising. That crosses the line from hosting your private content to seeing it as something they can peek at and make money on. Their whole culture is to accrue information about you. They want to know everything. "They" want to know everything? Who is "they"? In this case "they" happens to be a large computer farm. No one at Google cares a whit about me personally and I trust them not to give my details to anyone who does care about me personally. If they want to run an algorithm that matches strings in my emails to ads that's fine with me. That's the cost of using their free service. No privacy is being violated.
Is it ok for Google to massively copy books from libraries without permission so they can make a buck off advertising? Yes, it is. It is legal and where copyright is concerned legal == ok. They don't distribute the copyrighted content they merely index it and allow it to be searched. This is not only legal and therefore ok but an incredibly useful service to book lovers and book publishers alike. Google makes money for the indexing service not the content.
Government dealings shrouded in non-disclosure agreements? That's evil. This would only seem malicious if you already consider Google to have malicious intent. From my point of view the NDA looks a lot more like a mistake made out of habit by some underling than a corrupt corporation attempting to subvert the American way.
My opinion as to Google's intent is obviously different than yours. I'm sure many people working for Google have made many mistakes, however, I still trust that, as a corporation, their intent is still trustworthy. I don't see any plots or devious schemes here.
*sigh* I have this conversation regularly at work. Whenever I express my distrust of Microsoft inevitably someone will start babbling about how I will hate some other random company in ten years. I can't help but think that these are all just Microsoft apologists.
It isn't the age or size of a company that makes me hate them personally- it's their behavior.
So far Google has never done anything as a company that I think is evil (yes even the China filtering) and all their products have been delightful to use. Given their past history I see no reason to assume that they will suddenly and magically become irresponsible. I also don't see my loyalty to them to be a function of any PR department. As soon as they modify the IMAP spec to make it so only their own email client can connect, or sell my personal information, then I will hate them.
The difference is that I can't imagine Google doing that. I would practically expect it of some companies like MS or Sony who have a long history of such behavior.
Incidentally- I have no opinion about Apple as a corporation.
There are a lot of adjectives that could be accurately applied to Utah but "wild" isn't one of them.
"The ability to market to the Utah Mormon population or parents who want the facade of protection under the guise of censorship?"
Yes, actually, that probably is the point. A lot of the voting population in Utah is parents who would like the ability to tell what web sites they don't want their kids accessing without becoming experts on the internet.
Technically I don't think the solution would be adequate but I don't fault them for trying.
"I guess the good folks of Utah have no problem being considered the same as China, North Korea, Myanmar and a whole host of other countries who prohibit their citizens from seeing certain material because it is deemed offensive or against public morals."
Keep in mind that no one is discussing prohibiting citizens from doing anything. Many parents in general, and a lot of people in Utah in particular, have a strong interest in regulating the media their own children are exposed to. It's called being a good parent. This program is simply an attempt to make this task easier for the parents.
There is no censorship or oppression here and definitely nothing sensational.
You have said nothing that I can refute. Your description seems to me to be the pessimistic antithesis to mine. You're right that such a system could conceivably end up that way. I only offer it as my opinion that fans, even under the current system, are willing to support the music they love without being forced to.
Your last paragraph is so insightful I wish I hadn't posted so I could mod it so. (And yes I do see the logical incongruency of that statement.)
1) People that aren't paying now won't pay. Probably true. Most people that are willing to pirate music now probably still won't care. But a lot of people do care. Enough, I believe, to support musicians.
2) It's a lot of pain to find independent musicians that you like. I agree completely. I also think that this is a problem not unique to independent music. Labels produce a huge body of music that I have to sift through to find something good. Word of mouth has been far more successful for me in finding music I like. This would not necessarily be hindered by the labels going away.
3) The labels will still make money and artists will still sell out. I fear you are right and I hope that you are not.
4) I have to quote this one: "Yeah, there's no contribution in getting all those parties to work together, or to get the capital in place to sponsor the project. I agree copyright is too long, but that is a seperate issue from DRM." You are absolutely correct. My rant drifted off topic. However, you slightly misunderstood me. When I referred to those who made no artistic contribution I was referring to the organization today not to the one that originally produced the work. I actually agree with your last point completely.
First of all the picture you paint is inaccurate- the dream of being a musician that makes millions- for most musicians is only ever a dream. With the current system most musicians dream about it and the middle men make the millions.
I can't answer the question you posed in your post "how much money makes the effort worth it". I have to assume the question is rhetorical. My follow up question would be- how worth it is it to the musician to be able to make music? Would they make music even if they only made $1 Million? How about $500,000? How about if they only made $200,000 and were solidly middle class in most places? Would that still be enough to do what they love? If it isn't enough then let them do something else- be an accountant or even a painter. I'm sure there is someone to take their place to whom making music is worth it.
How much effort would be required to generate a sustainable, reasonable income? I have no idea, I'm sure it varies according to the talent of the particular musician. If you are saying that the dream of making millions is necessary to get musicians to risk making music- all I can say is that I whole-heartedly disagree.
As to the popularity contest. I have to admit that I didn't fully understand the point of your last line. I apologize. I'll answer it as I understood it and forgive me if I didn't. I think that, in the case of entertainment, it really is better to have the control in the hands of the entertained. If the entertainers aren't entertaining why are they being enriched as entertainers. With fewer middle men and moderate income expectations from musicians the market could afford a lot more musicians who cater to niche audiences.
Everyone wins. Except the middle men. Who, by the way, are the ones screaming about the whole situation.
Since this whole situation is hypothetical it is impossible of course to prove my point and the balance of proof is definitely in your favor. I fear I may not have been sufficiently clear in my last post. I think that musicians can be successful trusting their fan base to support them and using their music as a product in and of itself.
The example that I drag out all the time is Jonathan Coulton http://jonathancoulton.com/. He releases all of his music for free and under a Creative Commons license and he asks for donations. He worked for a year producing something every week. By the end of the year he was making enough money from people paying what they thought his music was worth to support himself. It still doesn't prove my point because he tours as well so I can't say if he makes enough from music sales alone.
I think most musicians are mediocre and musical filler and would have to do something else to make a profit. I hold it as my opinion, however, that the really good musicians could make it work.
A very shallow view of the situation would lead us to think that no one would make any money off the music. But... If some of the people that read that post and listened to the music showed it to a few of their friends... Then if a few of them wanted to see the movie... Then if the artist put up a paypal link... Profit.
It's riskier. The music has to be better. It puts the control in the hands of the consumer rather than the producer. There is little need for behemoth middle-men like music labels.
I see these all as good things.
It has been demonstrated that talented artists can make a living doing what they love without DRM. What has not been demonstrated is that labels can survive that way.
I'm ok with a world like that.
PS. "The Music Man" is a particularly apt example of the problem and essentially nullifies your point. Almost the entire cast, crew, and musicians involved in it's creation are dead. The only people making money off of it are distributors that made no artistic contribution to it's creation.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about what would best serve the COMPANY. It's about what would best serve the shareholders. Period.
My point was that shareholders may have differing opinions about what would best serve them. I used myself as an anecdotal example: when I buy stock in a company I become interested in the long term performance of that company- it would not be in my best interests as a shareholder to see a spike in my share price at the expense of the company going down the toilet.
What PROMISE can you make for tomorrow that will be worth more than cash today?
How about a lot more cash tomorrow? That is after all what investing is. I give you a little of my money in exchange for part of a company that will grow over time. If all you want is cash now then keep your cash and don't buy stock.
I would point out that I am not trying to argue for the managing ability of the CEO. It may be that selling to MicroSoft would have been better for the long term interests of Yahoo. All that I am saying is that it is very possible for the CEO of Yahoo to believe that he acted responsibly without the egocentrism or juvenile hatred that you accuse him of.
I would agree with your point if Yang said himself that he didn't sell because he hates MicroSoft personally. I never read that.
Wait... Are you trying to say that 911 is a vehicle of free speech? If the 911 operator didn't answer it would be a violation of my rights? That having a 911 operator proves that I have a right to an audience?
I don't get it. Was that a joke somehow?
the right thing to do for the shareholders
That is an interesting choice of words. You are presenting this opinion as fact where I believe there is room for many other interpretations. There are a lot ways that taking the deal could have been the wrong thing to do.
It was only guaranteed to be the "right thing" if you define the "right thing" as "maximizing short term stock price gains". There are many other ways that the "right thing" could be defined where that deal may or may not have been better. Things like "Maintaining reasonable profit growth for the next 50 years." or even "Providing a work environment that reduces employee attrition". I'm not saying that MS is necessarily bad at these things but a CEO could definitely make a case that the company would be better served by staying independent.
I personally never invest in companies that have a history of making decisions where the "right thing" is defined as "maximizing short term stock price gains". When you do that you're not building anything you're just gambling.
Very true.
Oh sure we learned a lot about computer architecture and digital logic but nothing useful about how to actually maintain a PC! There was nothing about how to install more memory or troubleshoot a bad power supply. We never even opened a computer case in a class!
I guess I'm not qualified to work as a computer technician- I'll just have to settle for making twice as much as a software engineer. :(
Of course I do know how to build and maintain a computer- it's really easy and no classes were required. It is handy at home but useless at work of course.
And a huge step backward for humanity.
It seems like you are thinking about this backwards.
Software companies invented non-transferable licenses so they could sell normal licenses for more. It's all artificial. This ruling states that there is no such thing as a non-transferable license.
If software manufacturers decided to keep their old pricing scheme based on a lie that's their choice of course but I suspect customers would be less willing to accept it.
In the end they will no doubt simply invent some other artificial mechanism to justify higher prices that will work just as well as the last mechanism they invented.
I see your point, however, I'm afraid we have devolved into an argument over semantics.
It isn't necessary to show you a law that prohibits a monopoly but just as you indicated there are laws that prohibit monopoly abuses. Or you could say in other words that there are laws that try to prohibit abusive monopolies. Obviously, in the mind of some, once a monopoly engages in illegal abusive practices it can be described as an illegal monopoly. It's just a matter of wording and the original poster's choice of words is perfectly valid and does not in fact make him look like an idiot.
My argument is not that monopolies are illegal but rather that the original poster's wording in no way warranted the aggressively rude language you used in response.
On the contrary- his post was well worded.
A monopoly can be ruled illegal if it is abused. Microsoft was convicted of abusing its monopoly so it is appropriate to clarify that their monopoly is technically of the illegal variety.
You should be more careful before throwing insults around- it has the potential to backfire.
I appreciate the civility of your post.
I agree that Google is not perfect- I just don't think they are malicious.
I should also add that I do think the filtering is wrong but I don't feel that it is Google's fault but China's. Defying the government order to filter would indeed be heroic- but complying with it does not in my mind make them accomplices.
I will, however, defend my opinion with more of my own opinions.
They started down the path when they started filtering your email for targeted advertising. That crosses the line from hosting your private content to seeing it as something they can peek at and make money on. Their whole culture is to accrue information about you. They want to know everything. "They" want to know everything? Who is "they"? In this case "they" happens to be a large computer farm. No one at Google cares a whit about me personally and I trust them not to give my details to anyone who does care about me personally. If they want to run an algorithm that matches strings in my emails to ads that's fine with me. That's the cost of using their free service. No privacy is being violated. Is it ok for Google to massively copy books from libraries without permission so they can make a buck off advertising? Yes, it is. It is legal and where copyright is concerned legal == ok. They don't distribute the copyrighted content they merely index it and allow it to be searched. This is not only legal and therefore ok but an incredibly useful service to book lovers and book publishers alike. Google makes money for the indexing service not the content. Government dealings shrouded in non-disclosure agreements? That's evil. This would only seem malicious if you already consider Google to have malicious intent. From my point of view the NDA looks a lot more like a mistake made out of habit by some underling than a corrupt corporation attempting to subvert the American way.My opinion as to Google's intent is obviously different than yours. I'm sure many people working for Google have made many mistakes, however, I still trust that, as a corporation, their intent is still trustworthy. I don't see any plots or devious schemes here.
"but these companies will be hated one day too."
*sigh*
I have this conversation regularly at work. Whenever I express my distrust of Microsoft inevitably someone will start babbling about how I will hate some other random company in ten years. I can't help but think that these are all just Microsoft apologists.
It isn't the age or size of a company that makes me hate them personally- it's their behavior.
So far Google has never done anything as a company that I think is evil (yes even the China filtering) and all their products have been delightful to use. Given their past history I see no reason to assume that they will suddenly and magically become irresponsible. I also don't see my loyalty to them to be a function of any PR department. As soon as they modify the IMAP spec to make it so only their own email client can connect, or sell my personal information, then I will hate them.
The difference is that I can't imagine Google doing that. I would practically expect it of some companies like MS or Sony who have a long history of such behavior.
Incidentally- I have no opinion about Apple as a corporation.
It isn't owned by Sony.
Except that the Chevy Nova did perfectly fine in Spanish speaking countries and there appears to have been no confusion about its name.
http://spanish.about.com/cs/culture/a/chevy_nova.htm (This link is not meant to imply that about.com is an authoritative source of historical information. This was just the first hit on google.)
There are a lot of adjectives that could be accurately applied to Utah but "wild" isn't one of them.
"The ability to market to the Utah Mormon population or parents who want the facade of protection under the guise of censorship?"
Yes, actually, that probably is the point. A lot of the voting population in Utah is parents who would like the ability to tell what web sites they don't want their kids accessing without becoming experts on the internet.
Technically I don't think the solution would be adequate but I don't fault them for trying.
"I guess the good folks of Utah have no problem being considered the same as China, North Korea, Myanmar and a whole host of other countries who prohibit their citizens from seeing certain material because it is deemed offensive or against public morals."
Keep in mind that no one is discussing prohibiting citizens from doing anything. Many parents in general, and a lot of people in Utah in particular, have a strong interest in regulating the media their own children are exposed to. It's called being a good parent. This program is simply an attempt to make this task easier for the parents.
There is no censorship or oppression here and definitely nothing sensational.
The irony of this statement coming from an AC poster is just staggering!
You have said nothing that I can refute. Your description seems to me to be the pessimistic antithesis to mine. You're right that such a system could conceivably end up that way. I only offer it as my opinion that fans, even under the current system, are willing to support the music they love without being forced to.
Your last paragraph is so insightful I wish I hadn't posted so I could mod it so. (And yes I do see the logical incongruency of that statement.)
You make good points. A lot of them.
1) People that aren't paying now won't pay.
Probably true. Most people that are willing to pirate music now probably still won't care. But a lot of people do care. Enough, I believe, to support musicians.
2) It's a lot of pain to find independent musicians that you like.
I agree completely. I also think that this is a problem not unique to independent music. Labels produce a huge body of music that I have to sift through to find something good. Word of mouth has been far more successful for me in finding music I like. This would not necessarily be hindered by the labels going away.
3) The labels will still make money and artists will still sell out.
I fear you are right and I hope that you are not.
4) I have to quote this one:
"Yeah, there's no contribution in getting all those parties to work together, or to get the capital in place to sponsor the project. I agree copyright is too long, but that is a seperate issue from DRM."
You are absolutely correct. My rant drifted off topic. However, you slightly misunderstood me. When I referred to those who made no artistic contribution I was referring to the organization today not to the one that originally produced the work. I actually agree with your last point completely.
It has and I hope it will be more.
See my other post about Jonathan Coulton.
First of all the picture you paint is inaccurate- the dream of being a musician that makes millions- for most musicians is only ever a dream. With the current system most musicians dream about it and the middle men make the millions.
I can't answer the question you posed in your post "how much money makes the effort worth it". I have to assume the question is rhetorical.
My follow up question would be- how worth it is it to the musician to be able to make music?
Would they make music even if they only made $1 Million? How about $500,000?
How about if they only made $200,000 and were solidly middle class in most places? Would that still be enough to do what they love? If it isn't enough then let them do something else- be an accountant or even a painter. I'm sure there is someone to take their place to whom making music is worth it.
How much effort would be required to generate a sustainable, reasonable income? I have no idea, I'm sure it varies according to the talent of the particular musician. If you are saying that the dream of making millions is necessary to get musicians to risk making music- all I can say is that I whole-heartedly disagree.
As to the popularity contest. I have to admit that I didn't fully understand the point of your last line. I apologize. I'll answer it as I understood it and forgive me if I didn't. I think that, in the case of entertainment, it really is better to have the control in the hands of the entertained. If the entertainers aren't entertaining why are they being enriched as entertainers. With fewer middle men and moderate income expectations from musicians the market could afford a lot more musicians who cater to niche audiences.
Everyone wins.
Except the middle men. Who, by the way, are the ones screaming about the whole situation.
The example that I drag out all the time is Jonathan Coulton http://jonathancoulton.com/. He releases all of his music for free and under a Creative Commons license and he asks for donations. He worked for a year producing something every week. By the end of the year he was making enough money from people paying what they thought his music was worth to support himself. It still doesn't prove my point because he tours as well so I can't say if he makes enough from music sales alone.
I think most musicians are mediocre and musical filler and would have to do something else to make a profit. I hold it as my opinion, however, that the really good musicians could make it work.
Sort of.
A very shallow view of the situation would lead us to think that no one would make any money off the music. But...
If some of the people that read that post and listened to the music showed it to a few of their friends...
Then if a few of them wanted to see the movie...
Then if the artist put up a paypal link...
Profit.
It's riskier. The music has to be better. It puts the control in the hands of the consumer rather than the producer. There is little need for behemoth middle-men like music labels.
I see these all as good things.
It has been demonstrated that talented artists can make a living doing what they love without DRM. What has not been demonstrated is that labels can survive that way.
I'm ok with a world like that.
PS. "The Music Man" is a particularly apt example of the problem and essentially nullifies your point. Almost the entire cast, crew, and musicians involved in it's creation are dead. The only people making money off of it are distributors that made no artistic contribution to it's creation.
Very much a techie place. The wiki and forum are used only by software and hardware R&D.
Maybe you don't. I'm not trying to convince you.
Here IM has a useful niche because phone is too obtrusive but email is too slow.
Perhaps your corporate culture is different and email is good enough.