Rather interesting turn of events in the world today... I refer to my original post on the role of the firm... and the role of banks in the world... Banks are supposed to allocate money to firms that have good (cash generating) ideas.. instead these morons sit and productize money...
I am a simple guy and as I studied for the hardest exam in the world, only one law was really needed to to solve all the problems that came my way. Energy is conserved.
On wall street, I strongly believe that once a $1 bill is printed it can't vanish. Where did that $1 bill go? What I wanted to know was which smart-ass got the money.
I've started buying the FT Weekend edition. Its a great read and its also good for quality time with my better half, since one section is on how to make money and the other (the better half) is on where to spend it.
Anyway, thats when I heard the name David Einhorn for the first time.
When I first studied economics at IITM, the final exam was to write an essay on a financial event in the last decade. 90% of the class wrote about the Liberalization of the Indian economy. I guess that whole jing bang had completely escaped me... I wrote about Bearings Bank and my personal hero at the time, Nick Leeson. I was 17 and the only idiot who thought that a bank going down was a financial event of some magnitude.
So, Mr. Einhorn who is a hedge-fund manager at Greenlight Capital, apparently had the smarts or the patience to look at Lehman's balance sheet. He then went on to talk to the CFO and other Fuldian cronies and decided they were in the Structured Bullshit business.
This is the most sensible thought process I have heard from anyone on Wall Street.
And he is currently the owner of that missing $1 bill. There is really no value lost on Wall Street in my opinion. All the widows and orphans invested in Lehman and Bear, just gave their money to David.
The winner and my new hero.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Copyright Battles Heat Up on Web
I read a nice article on the Washington post recently...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103131_pf.html
and something struck me...
"Hasbro is stupid," said Saffo. "Thanks to this new electronic lounge called Facebook, board games are hot. Two Indian students pointed [Hasbro] to what could be their iTunes and they responded with lawyers."
One of my pals has written a nice argument in favor of 'People should have to pay for music'. I am unable to write an argument against it. But something in my head tells me that this is not right. I need to frame my thoughts... but along the way... this story also captures part of what I feel...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103131_pf.html
and something struck me...
"Hasbro is stupid," said Saffo. "Thanks to this new electronic lounge called Facebook, board games are hot. Two Indian students pointed [Hasbro] to what could be their iTunes and they responded with lawyers."
One of my pals has written a nice argument in favor of 'People should have to pay for music'. I am unable to write an argument against it. But something in my head tells me that this is not right. I need to frame my thoughts... but along the way... this story also captures part of what I feel...
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Mom fights music giant
I wonder if I am breaking copyright rules by posting this here, with a reference to the newspaper?
Mom fights music giant
S.J. COURT CONSIDERS KEY COPYRIGHT CASE
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 07/19/2008 01:33:24 AM PDT
For Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz, a closely watched copyright showdown in San Jose federal court is a simple matter of standing up to powerful music moguls and petulant pop stars.
"I figure I have nothing to lose," Lenz said Friday in a telephone interview with the Mercury News. "The music companies are just going to keep doing this to people. I think it's my responsibility to stand up to them and say, 'That's enough.' "
Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.
Calling it a "case of first impression," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday considered Universal's attempt to dismiss Lenz's lawsuit, which maintains the media giant and Prince are abusing a 10-year-old copyright law intended to curtail movie and music thievery on the Web. Lenz is seeking unspecified damages and a court finding that she did not violate Universal's copyrights with the YouTube video.
'Takedown' letters
The case centers on a so-called "takedown" letter Universal sent to Lenz after she posted the video in February 2007. Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year, essentially forcing the material to be at least temporarily removed unless
Advertisement
the target fights the request.
Lenz fought back hard, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties organization. She maintains that the video was a harmless, legal use of a popular song, and that her case exemplifies how a powerful industry can abuse the copyright law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Fogel dismissed a previous version of Lenz's lawsuit, but her lawyers filed a revised complaint that recasts the case as a test of what copyright holders must consider before sending out takedown letters. Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers urged the judge to keep the case alive, arguing that companies such as Universal have an obligation to investigate and evaluate a video such as Lenz's before firing off the threatening letters.
Claim of 'fair use'
"It's a tiny, blurry little home movie," said Corynne McSherry, the foundation's attorney on the case.
Lenz and her legal team depict the video as a "fair use" of the Prince song. But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.
Fogel took the company's request to dismiss the case under consideration and will rule later.
"The copyright owner is arguing that this is infringing; Lenz says it is fair use," said Mark Lemley, director of Stanford University's Law, Science and Technology clinic. "There are no cases directly on this question of user-generated content that incorporates songs as background. Lenz will be the first."
In the meantime, Lenz is prepared to take her case as far as it goes in the courts. The video is back up on YouTube, but that's not enough to appease Lenz.
"Somebody needs to tell these music companies they can't just throw out these (takedown letters) and accuse people of violating federal crimes," she said. "I didn't like feeling like I'd done something wrong, even though I knew I hadn't. It made me panic."
Mom fights music giant
S.J. COURT CONSIDERS KEY COPYRIGHT CASE
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 07/19/2008 01:33:24 AM PDT
For Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz, a closely watched copyright showdown in San Jose federal court is a simple matter of standing up to powerful music moguls and petulant pop stars.
"I figure I have nothing to lose," Lenz said Friday in a telephone interview with the Mercury News. "The music companies are just going to keep doing this to people. I think it's my responsibility to stand up to them and say, 'That's enough.' "
Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.
Calling it a "case of first impression," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday considered Universal's attempt to dismiss Lenz's lawsuit, which maintains the media giant and Prince are abusing a 10-year-old copyright law intended to curtail movie and music thievery on the Web. Lenz is seeking unspecified damages and a court finding that she did not violate Universal's copyrights with the YouTube video.
'Takedown' letters
The case centers on a so-called "takedown" letter Universal sent to Lenz after she posted the video in February 2007. Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year, essentially forcing the material to be at least temporarily removed unless
Advertisement
the target fights the request.
Lenz fought back hard, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties organization. She maintains that the video was a harmless, legal use of a popular song, and that her case exemplifies how a powerful industry can abuse the copyright law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Fogel dismissed a previous version of Lenz's lawsuit, but her lawyers filed a revised complaint that recasts the case as a test of what copyright holders must consider before sending out takedown letters. Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers urged the judge to keep the case alive, arguing that companies such as Universal have an obligation to investigate and evaluate a video such as Lenz's before firing off the threatening letters.
Claim of 'fair use'
"It's a tiny, blurry little home movie," said Corynne McSherry, the foundation's attorney on the case.
Lenz and her legal team depict the video as a "fair use" of the Prince song. But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.
Fogel took the company's request to dismiss the case under consideration and will rule later.
"The copyright owner is arguing that this is infringing; Lenz says it is fair use," said Mark Lemley, director of Stanford University's Law, Science and Technology clinic. "There are no cases directly on this question of user-generated content that incorporates songs as background. Lenz will be the first."
In the meantime, Lenz is prepared to take her case as far as it goes in the courts. The video is back up on YouTube, but that's not enough to appease Lenz.
"Somebody needs to tell these music companies they can't just throw out these (takedown letters) and accuse people of violating federal crimes," she said. "I didn't like feeling like I'd done something wrong, even though I knew I hadn't. It made me panic."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Intellectual Property - The Question
One of the things that I have been unable to resolve for myself is whether people should have to pay for music.
If individuals use music to generate revenue, part of the revenue belongs to the author. Granted. But if I am simply listening to music without paying for it, should I be charged with a crime?
The argument from record companies is that downloading music illegally is like stealing from a shop. The latter is a crime and so should the former be.
I guess the greater question here is who owns the right to music, art, etc., and when do things become a crime?
Who owns music? How far is this discussion away from 'Who owns water and air'? That is the purpose of the next discussion.
If individuals use music to generate revenue, part of the revenue belongs to the author. Granted. But if I am simply listening to music without paying for it, should I be charged with a crime?
The argument from record companies is that downloading music illegally is like stealing from a shop. The latter is a crime and so should the former be.
I guess the greater question here is who owns the right to music, art, etc., and when do things become a crime?
Who owns music? How far is this discussion away from 'Who owns water and air'? That is the purpose of the next discussion.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
O&A Innovation
Right... not sure where you ran off to... but to continue with my smoke exhalations on my couch with kool-aid.. I believe in perfect markets and the right of mankind to have perfect markets and perfect access to capital... I also acknowledge that the world is not built that way...
In the O&A space, I think there are three issues (listed as ones that I find happiness solving):
1. Markets are inefficient --> Selling costs
2. Capital is limited --> Finance costs
3. Governments --> Taxes...
and all O&A innovations are a result of trying to minimize these costs for a business (which again in my view is purely S meeting the needs of C), costs which lead to a loss of overall value...
So to move into my grey zone... someone needs to take the trouble to create a market, make it efficient etc... fine... I am willing to acknowledge that and let the 'Market' be a business in itself... The claim therefore is, that the C and the S 'need' (they do not have the fundamental right) a market, some person 'S-M' has provided this service... he is an S... he has a cost, the S, the C, and S-M agree on a price for the service and we are in the business of 2-sided markets.... Google, eBay, and related platforms, I don't want them... but I need them in todays world... badly.... hence I bow to them..
Consider drug development... say the Masai in Africa have a big problem with blindness... Merck has an idea and a way to find a cure... the Masai want the cure... they have cows, Merck wants $s. In the olden days, it would be easy... Merck gives the drug, takes the cows.... is there a cow-money-blindnessDrug market? If so, that is innovation... The Masai don't want this market, but they need it... I bow to the market maker...
Capital.... this is a tricky one. for me.. (1) access and (2) availability are the two issues here I think... Access I think is a fundamental right... availability is on merit... access is a market issue, discussed above...
Availability of capital, since it is limited, is based on return on invested capital... the assumption here (atleast in the beginning I am sure) is that the firm that meets the biggest need will get the biggest returns.. returns are used as a proxy for satisfied-needs... all good for me...
Next problem is the risk associated with the return...
Now, you never know if you are meeting a need perfectly... hence given perfect markets and no government, there is still that risk... but this is part of CSpace and Sspace... and understanding it better... this is business risk... when this is better I bow...
From a firm's point of view, many times the game is, how do I reduce the risk for 'myself' and get access to the capital... you either move the whole risk to a third party say a supplier... and claim that you have reduced risk... and gain access to capital... that is not innovation... that is cheating... investor ABC funding the firm will not lose their money... but investor XYZ who funded the supplier will..
and THIS is where I have the biggest problem... the risk has not gone anywhere... it has just been moved from one place to another -->obfuscation/cheating... or from the present to the future --> gambling... you want to show me innovation here... ELIMINATE this risk from the system completely... and THEN I will bow...
Taxes... don't even get me started... anyone who claims innovation or value creation here must be an investment banker :)...
Shyam.
In the O&A space, I think there are three issues (listed as ones that I find happiness solving):
1. Markets are inefficient --> Selling costs
2. Capital is limited --> Finance costs
3. Governments --> Taxes...
and all O&A innovations are a result of trying to minimize these costs for a business (which again in my view is purely S meeting the needs of C), costs which lead to a loss of overall value...
So to move into my grey zone... someone needs to take the trouble to create a market, make it efficient etc... fine... I am willing to acknowledge that and let the 'Market' be a business in itself... The claim therefore is, that the C and the S 'need' (they do not have the fundamental right) a market, some person 'S-M' has provided this service... he is an S... he has a cost, the S, the C, and S-M agree on a price for the service and we are in the business of 2-sided markets.... Google, eBay, and related platforms, I don't want them... but I need them in todays world... badly.... hence I bow to them..
Consider drug development... say the Masai in Africa have a big problem with blindness... Merck has an idea and a way to find a cure... the Masai want the cure... they have cows, Merck wants $s. In the olden days, it would be easy... Merck gives the drug, takes the cows.... is there a cow-money-blindnessDrug market? If so, that is innovation... The Masai don't want this market, but they need it... I bow to the market maker...
Capital.... this is a tricky one. for me.. (1) access and (2) availability are the two issues here I think... Access I think is a fundamental right... availability is on merit... access is a market issue, discussed above...
Availability of capital, since it is limited, is based on return on invested capital... the assumption here (atleast in the beginning I am sure) is that the firm that meets the biggest need will get the biggest returns.. returns are used as a proxy for satisfied-needs... all good for me...
Next problem is the risk associated with the return...
Now, you never know if you are meeting a need perfectly... hence given perfect markets and no government, there is still that risk... but this is part of CSpace and Sspace... and understanding it better... this is business risk... when this is better I bow...
From a firm's point of view, many times the game is, how do I reduce the risk for 'myself' and get access to the capital... you either move the whole risk to a third party say a supplier... and claim that you have reduced risk... and gain access to capital... that is not innovation... that is cheating... investor ABC funding the firm will not lose their money... but investor XYZ who funded the supplier will..
and THIS is where I have the biggest problem... the risk has not gone anywhere... it has just been moved from one place to another -->obfuscation/cheating... or from the present to the future --> gambling... you want to show me innovation here... ELIMINATE this risk from the system completely... and THEN I will bow...
Taxes... don't even get me started... anyone who claims innovation or value creation here must be an investment banker :)...
Shyam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)