Call up a major branding firm and ask them how much to rebrand one of the larger, more popular sites on the net. Then ask them what you can get for $4k. The answer will be something like, "You're getting it now."
Neither my SA or EA say anything about "independent 3rd party audit". It says MS has the right to audit. Period. And unless your a Global 2000 company, good luck getting them to change so much as one puncutation mark on their contract.
It may have changed since I last did one, but it used to be that if you had a Select or Enterprise Agreement with MS, they had the right to audit spelled out in the contract. The article is mum as to whether or not such an agreement was in force between MS & AWC, though most companies of any size have one or both agreements.
So, if MS has a Select or Enterprise Agreement with AWC, then MS is fully within their right to request an audit and this is a non-news article.
Also, note that Computer World doesn't call this a "sales force scare tactic" as the headline implies. That term isn't even used in the article.
But it will only cover those songs sold electronically, yes?
Let's look at iTunes. $0.99 per download. One billion songs downloaded. I dunno, 33% of these are sony, or 300 million. Sony gets $.070 of each sale. $210 million. Artists claim they've been screwed out of $0.255 per sale. $76.5 million.
That is chump change to Sony.
The only people who will see any serious monrey froma settlment like this will be (like always) the class-action attorneys.
OK, all kidding aside, my guess is that they deduct these costs because that's how their accounting system is set up and aside from the loss of free money, it's significant $$$ and a major PITA to change. So they go to court, lose and for a while the artists get more money. Don't think for a minute that Sony won't think of some other way to get this money back.
Hey, could that [an Adobe acquisition] be why Apple is rumored to have this week just laid-off its entire Aperture development group?
Could be.
Yeah, and it could be that the product never lived up to expectations and saw little market adoption so Apple decided it was time to cut their losses and focus their resources on something else.
Google has a huge vested interested in preventing a tiered Internet.
I'm not trying to dimininsh what Vint has done in the past nor am I saying that tiered internets are good/bad, but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.networkmirror.com/bUeMRHp2JQWoEqXH/www. flexbeta.net/main/comments.php%3Fcatid%3D1%26shown ews%3D19885.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Tanenbaum
Tanenbaum had a doctorate before Linus was potty trained.
...get something you didn't bargain for.
Really, is this even remotely news?
It's not perfect. Nothing is perfect. How close to perfect do you have to get to be good enough?
Do you mean as opposed to say Google or Microsoft? They are all whores for the almighty revenue. It's called being in business.
Call up a major branding firm and ask them how much to rebrand one of the larger, more popular sites on the net. Then ask them what you can get for $4k. The answer will be something like, "You're getting it now."
Neither my SA or EA say anything about "independent 3rd party audit". It says MS has the right to audit. Period. And unless your a Global 2000 company, good luck getting them to change so much as one puncutation mark on their contract.
It may have changed since I last did one, but it used to be that if you had
a Select or Enterprise Agreement with MS, they had the right to audit
spelled out in the contract. The article is mum as to whether or not such
an agreement was in force between MS & AWC, though most companies of any
size have one or both agreements.
So, if MS has a Select or Enterprise Agreement with AWC, then MS is fully
within their right to request an audit and this is a non-news article.
Also, note that Computer World doesn't call this a "sales force scare
tactic" as the headline implies. That term isn't even used in the article.
Comparing the PRC to a Nazi concentration camp?
Yeah. If you're more than 3 hours late, they bill the full value of the car to your credit card.
Where've you been?
two words:
Millberg Weiss
...this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.
No, it's called business as usual at a big tort firm.
I don't really care about the theoretical, research side or first builds that cost more than a single family house...
Been to Silicon Valley lately? You'll need 7 of these cars to equal the price of your average single family house.
ooops... that was March '05, not March '06
Sony, the parent, has $7 billion cash on their balance sheet.
I find it extremely hard to believe that this is some dumb accounting limitation.
Then you lack an appreciation of how inertia works in large organizations.
But it will only cover those songs sold electronically, yes?
Let's look at iTunes. $0.99 per download. One billion songs downloaded. I dunno, 33% of these are sony, or 300 million. Sony gets $.070 of each sale. $210 million. Artists claim they've been screwed out of $0.255 per sale. $76.5 million.
That is chump change to Sony.
The only people who will see any serious monrey froma settlment like this will be (like always) the class-action attorneys.
Royalties? What are we talking about? 20 bucks?
OK, all kidding aside, my guess is that they deduct these costs because that's how their accounting system is set up and aside from the loss of free money, it's significant $$$ and a major PITA to change. So they go to court, lose and for a while the artists get more money. Don't think for a minute that Sony won't think of some other way to get this money back.
Some measurable percentage of people would still click on it.
Hey, could that [an Adobe acquisition] be why Apple is rumored to have this week just laid-off its entire Aperture development group?
Could be.
Yeah, and it could be that the product never lived up to expectations and saw little market adoption so Apple decided it was time to cut their losses and focus their resources on something else.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
speak for yourself.
:)
I'll need a large micro pump.
http://www.networkmirror.com/ekXdq3RqHwPz5vfh/www. cleversafe.org/index.html
The others are there too.
Google has a huge vested interested in preventing a tiered Internet.
I'm not trying to dimininsh what Vint has done in the past nor am I saying that tiered internets are good/bad, but let's face it, Vint is hardly an unbiased source.
uh... Stanford University Network?