Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Don Rua" <drua AT fullseven.com>]

>>I thought that Microsoft was a very rich company, with lots of cash in the 
bank.

What does having alot of cash in the bank have to do with cutting deals which 
favor others? The cash in the bank, and the best deal they can cut, are 
issues that belong to the stockholders. If the stockholders want to help out 
musicians, they are free to give as much as they want to their musician of 
choice, but a business has a fiduciary duty to perform the function they are 
built for, making money.  A public company serves its stockholders (little 
folks like my mom, capiche?) and to cut 'nice' deals with others is only 
prudent if there is a compelling business reason to do so.

>>Why are they bending the rules to their own sole benefit? I mean, musicians 
have the right to mae money out of their work, isn't it?

Hmmm..imagine that, a company acting for it's own sole benefit! Comments 
about MS never cease to give me a chuckle. First, who's benefit are they 
supposed to work for, and who has been appointed to determine that? Was there 
something in the constitution that says "A business must be started to 
benefit the common good above all others?" Perhaps something in Marx' work 
perhaps. And it's not Billy Gates decision to work for a specific objective, 
it's all their directors and stockholders decision who approve and vote and 
invest in those decisions. Again, all of us. Last time I checked, MS stock 
was available to all regardless of race, religion, etc.

As for musicians 'having a right to make money', I must assume that's a joke 
comment based on some earlier thread. Money is not made based on effort, or 
what is nice, it's made based on serving a market. I don't remember anyone at 
MS telling a musician he is not allowed to make money from his work. Now, if 
a musician 'wants' a deal with MS, the market will determine the price. If 
there are musicians who will give their stuff to Xbox games for free, and MS 
pays them a dime, MS is being poor stewards of the public company. It is not 
their job to be any kinder that is legally necessary, it is their job to 
increase shareholder value. That's not a mantra, it's an ethical obligation 
to those whose lifestyle it supports, and at this time that is a large number.

Frankly, I believe the musicians make out like bandits if they get their work 
on an Xbox game. Someone stated a price of 20-30K? That might buy one 
half-page ad in a music mag. But getting a song on a hot game gets pounded 
into folkses heads. I can play a FinalFantasy game 24 hours straight, or 
TonyHawksProSkater till my thumbs ache, and I'll fall asleep with tunes from 
previously unknown bands playing through my head unmercifully. You can't buy 
that for 20K or 100K. Licensing? How about a perpetual free marketing 
opportunity for which the musicians should pay dearly for. Compute the ROI on 
that and see who's taking advantage of whom. You think a damn sole buys a 
video game to listen to some band scream "It's in our nature to kill each 
other....". There are CD's for that.


Nobody 'deserves' to get paid. You either sell your stuff to someone who will 
pay, or you don't. If I was XYZ band, I'd be first in line to get my goods on 
a hot video game any way possible, and laugh at those who are too 
shortsighted to let go of a penny to make a dollar.

>>Or is it Microsoft the only one allowed to make money?

Again, a chuckle. To convert a phrase of Yoda: "There is no 'allow'. There is 
only do, or do not."

Don. Personal opinion only.



-- 
>>Josep L. Guallar-Esteve



---

END OF DIGEST

---
You are currently subscribed to internetworkers as: drua AT fullseven.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')