Being that it has been stated that IBM is a "poorly" managed company does the blunder of a decision to lay off 100,000+ experienced workers by year's end surprise you. First to show that I am an objective person, outsourcing is not a bad thing; it is a viable system of economics. If done strategically, it could possibly work. But if it is not conducted in a well thought out manner, there starts the demise of your company, which is the case 98% of the time. The simple thought of saving the company 20 million on labor is so wildly over-sighted. But the CEO does not think his 20 million dollar salary, unwise decisions, and highly-backstabbing tech atmosphere is the issue.
I believe that the music industry has definitely been leveraging P2P for their own benefit. I simply can't believe that as much money as the music industry brings in; they do not perform factual studies to prove that piracy is cutting into the bottom line. Truth is it isn't the labels who are indeed doing the suing it is the actual artists. So let's break this down as an example.
Your an artist and you finally get that big break of landing a record deal. To cut your album, you require not only studio time, production, and hell of a lot of other fees as well. The label gives you an "advance"(loan) to help offset this, well you take your money and show mama how far you have made it. Mansion, luxury cars, high-end clothes, bling, partying, entourage, and whatever your broke self couldn't buy before. Tabs are starting to be run up against your "advance". So let say you spent a modest 60% because you want that first record to put you on the map. Well, now you have 40% to pay for everything from Dr.Dre to produce a track to a video from Hype Williams. Now, you've managed to stretch your budget into the red or if your lucky break even.
So now you have released and album. Your album is doing steady on the charts because you have a hit or two, so you walk into the corporate office of your label and are expecting a big check from them. Instead they give you a bill. What?!! Oh remember that "advance" they gave you, you have to pay that back. Oh and the contract that you didn't read told you that you were getting 3 points of a 100 point system (you get 3% of album sales, the label gets 97% of album sales). That record that you made in between going to Jacob the Jeweler and private plane to South Beach for weekend R & R. only has maybe 5 hit tracks.
Meanwhile, the consumer goes to the store and buys it because your first track is pretty fly, so they get it. After listening to your album, the consumer felt that their were 5 songs that he likes and the remaining 15 (8 skits because of that budget issue you ran into) aren't quite as good. So of course the word of mouth is always the strongest in marketing. That consumer tells his friend that you only have a couple of hot tracks. Nowadays with money being tight, consumers are not going to waist it on your sort-of good album. So the social "sharing" starts to happen.
Now, your label is starting to scream at you because they want their "advance" money back, so they tell you that people are burning your music. That is why you are making less. So because you owe big, you get YOUR lawyers and sue. The government gets about 50% of the money because it is taxable income. The lawyers just made 20% of the money you brought in from the lawsuit. The label gets about 25% because balance overdue. And you have other bills to pay, remember all that R & R on South Beach. Know you have to hurry up and cut another album because that $10,000 per month mortgage is a monthly bill.
I said all this to say isn't this the American way. Everyone makes money off of everyone. When you charge too much for a product that isn't worth the price; history has shown that the consumer figures out a way to offset those high costs to obtain the product they desire. How do they do that, the black market (bootlegging).
Folks we need to take a very sharp look at this subject and realize that we are in a spoon fed society. During the 9/11 attack there was no hard proof of the the parties involved and there was an immediate call for an identity to be revealed as the nationality not persons involved with the attack, and unfortunately it happened to be the people of middle eastern descent. Certainly the television news has become an entertainment forum where word play can deceive a simple mind into thinking an opinion is a fact. I certainly am a person that values national security but how does a name, nationality, or sexuality speak of a person and their intentions. I think it is a better stand if Western Union stated that all transactions over an extreme amount or several successive transactions are evaluated for all customers. Timothy Mcveigh was one of our own countrymen and there was no increase of security for those with the same last name, same birthplace, or same color eyes for that matter. Why because it is stupid to do so! Somehow hate is a bias depending on those who are doing the finger pointing and usually aren't for something that is a little more solid. If the government has placed this sanction against Middle Eastern people then Minorities (women included), Religious Groups, Foreigners, Homosexuals, "Rednecks" and others that are all labelled all can potentially be subjected to the same treatment and diminished civil rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Being that it has been stated that IBM is a "poorly" managed company does the blunder of a decision to lay off 100,000+ experienced workers by year's end surprise you. First to show that I am an objective person, outsourcing is not a bad thing; it is a viable system of economics. If done strategically, it could possibly work. But if it is not conducted in a well thought out manner, there starts the demise of your company, which is the case 98% of the time. The simple thought of saving the company 20 million on labor is so wildly over-sighted. But the CEO does not think his 20 million dollar salary, unwise decisions, and highly-backstabbing tech atmosphere is the issue.
I believe that the music industry has definitely been leveraging P2P for their own benefit. I simply can't believe that as much money as the music industry brings in; they do not perform factual studies to prove that piracy is cutting into the bottom line. Truth is it isn't the labels who are indeed doing the suing it is the actual artists. So let's break this down as an example. Your an artist and you finally get that big break of landing a record deal. To cut your album, you require not only studio time, production, and hell of a lot of other fees as well. The label gives you an "advance"(loan) to help offset this, well you take your money and show mama how far you have made it. Mansion, luxury cars, high-end clothes, bling, partying, entourage, and whatever your broke self couldn't buy before. Tabs are starting to be run up against your "advance". So let say you spent a modest 60% because you want that first record to put you on the map. Well, now you have 40% to pay for everything from Dr.Dre to produce a track to a video from Hype Williams. Now, you've managed to stretch your budget into the red or if your lucky break even. So now you have released and album. Your album is doing steady on the charts because you have a hit or two, so you walk into the corporate office of your label and are expecting a big check from them. Instead they give you a bill. What?!! Oh remember that "advance" they gave you, you have to pay that back. Oh and the contract that you didn't read told you that you were getting 3 points of a 100 point system (you get 3% of album sales, the label gets 97% of album sales). That record that you made in between going to Jacob the Jeweler and private plane to South Beach for weekend R & R. only has maybe 5 hit tracks. Meanwhile, the consumer goes to the store and buys it because your first track is pretty fly, so they get it. After listening to your album, the consumer felt that their were 5 songs that he likes and the remaining 15 (8 skits because of that budget issue you ran into) aren't quite as good. So of course the word of mouth is always the strongest in marketing. That consumer tells his friend that you only have a couple of hot tracks. Nowadays with money being tight, consumers are not going to waist it on your sort-of good album. So the social "sharing" starts to happen. Now, your label is starting to scream at you because they want their "advance" money back, so they tell you that people are burning your music. That is why you are making less. So because you owe big, you get YOUR lawyers and sue. The government gets about 50% of the money because it is taxable income. The lawyers just made 20% of the money you brought in from the lawsuit. The label gets about 25% because balance overdue. And you have other bills to pay, remember all that R & R on South Beach. Know you have to hurry up and cut another album because that $10,000 per month mortgage is a monthly bill. I said all this to say isn't this the American way. Everyone makes money off of everyone. When you charge too much for a product that isn't worth the price; history has shown that the consumer figures out a way to offset those high costs to obtain the product they desire. How do they do that, the black market (bootlegging).
Folks we need to take a very sharp look at this subject and realize that we are in a spoon fed society. During the 9/11 attack there was no hard proof of the the parties involved and there was an immediate call for an identity to be revealed as the nationality not persons involved with the attack, and unfortunately it happened to be the people of middle eastern descent. Certainly the television news has become an entertainment forum where word play can deceive a simple mind into thinking an opinion is a fact. I certainly am a person that values national security but how does a name, nationality, or sexuality speak of a person and their intentions. I think it is a better stand if Western Union stated that all transactions over an extreme amount or several successive transactions are evaluated for all customers. Timothy Mcveigh was one of our own countrymen and there was no increase of security for those with the same last name, same birthplace, or same color eyes for that matter. Why because it is stupid to do so! Somehow hate is a bias depending on those who are doing the finger pointing and usually aren't for something that is a little more solid. If the government has placed this sanction against Middle Eastern people then Minorities (women included), Religious Groups, Foreigners, Homosexuals, "Rednecks" and others that are all labelled all can potentially be subjected to the same treatment and diminished civil rights.