That was the sound heard throughout wall street asentertainment stocks blast off into the stratosphere upon the mid day news that MGM got the best of the Grokster decision. Wall Street traders and investors recognizing that the decision would lead to certain demise for illegal P2P filesharing sites and result in an explosion of music sales over the coming months and years, pushed stocks such as Warner Media Group to all time highs on record volume.

Except that didn’t happen.

In the business world, one way to evaluate the financial importance of news is by watching to see how Wall Street responds to it. If there is the slightest glimmer of hope in a news announcement, at least one person is going to think it will have some level of impact and make a bet on the stock and/or industry impacted.

There wasn’t a Kaboom, there wasn’t a whisper in the market. Not one buyer or seller of stocks gave a damn. Warner Music Group, probably the only public company that is a pureplay proxy forthe music business, traded almost exactly the same number of shares as it does every day. The stock was down a nickel.

In other words, no one cared. No one on Wall Street thought that this decision would impact the music business at all.

Of course that’s because it won’t.

THe MGM Grokster decision won’t help the contentbusiness make more money. It won’t help artists make more money. This deal gave something to both sides, but it gave the most to lawyers and lobbyists.

The good news is that at least the SCOTUS kept the focus on how technology is marketed rather than what it does.The bad news is thatthe MPAA and RIAA will jump all over the slightest double technolgy entendre that any marketing blurb or item could have.

I’m not sure how companies are going to protect themselves against it.

How are companies who invest in technology going to protect themselves and their investments against it?

This is from a contract for an investment that I was looking at.It was a very smart moveto ask for this protection and i have every intention of stealing it and using itin any digital asset acquisition I undertake in the future.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act Compliance. Seller has complied with all the requirements in Section 512(c) and 512(i) of Title 17 of the United States Code to qualify for a limitation on liability for copyright infringement, including without limitation (i) having no actual knowledge that any material or an activity using the material on the Seller Websites is infringing; (ii) having no awareness of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; (iii) upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that material or an activity using the material on the Seller Websites is infringing, acting expeditiously to remove or disable access to any infringing material, and (iv) upon receiving notification of claimed infringement, responding expeditiously to remove or disable access to material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

With the Groksterruling, going forward,just how onerous will theprotection language be for purchases of, or investments indigital technology? Will it be enough forthe target company to promise that they complied?

Or, will contract appendixes have copies of all marketing materials as confirmation that the target companynever induced anyone to infringe on a copyright? What about emails sent to prospects and customers? Will we have to save them all to confirm what we did or didn’t suggest when marketing and promoting the technology?

Is this the start of a “Sarbanes Oxley” type environment for technology companies? Will companies have to save and document everything they do in the marketing and promoting of their technologies? Will they, or rather, should they video all presentations and record all phone calls?

How else can we know that we are protected against unwarranted law suits that are used as competitive weapons to slow new technologies?

I don’t know how it will all turn out. It’s probably not as bad as our worst nightmares, but there is the risk that it just might be.

I guess the only certainty from all of this is that it’s probably a good time to create a new type of insurance that insures companies against the cost of defending the Grokster lawsuits that are sure to come.

See what the blogosphere is saying about the ruling

ShareThis

First, what a great , great series to watch. There has been everything that a basketball junkie could want. Passion, intensity, athleticism, how did he do that shots, team play on both sides of the ball, lots of suprises and a coaching chess match between the two best coaches of this decade.

Which leads me to the pre game shows. I don’t want to hear what Mike, Tim, Bill, Steven or Greg think the teams or players should do. I want more information on what they are doing. Why is it that only football pre games or in game analysts talk about plays? Why can’t we get some basketball analysts who break down games and tell us what plays are being run, how the defenses are reacting to them and whats working or not working?

Give me something of substance beyond “Duncan has got to show up”. “Joe Dumars told Rasheed to take his shot when they were in the elevator together.”

We have gotten some in game analysis about where certain players like to shoot from… mostly Bruce Bowen and Tim Duncan, and that Chauncey Billups likes to shoot 3s in the 4th quarter, but beyond that it seems like the announcers assume the fans not only know nothing about the game, but they want to keep it that way.

One of the best features, I think in Sports Illustrated is the scouting reports on teams and players. Give us some knowledge from the people who get paid to scout the league. The more we can give insights from insiders rather than listen to what Ben Wallace’s wife told him for the 9th time (it was ok as a fun fact the first time), the more involved fans will be with the game.

Which is not to say that ABC hasn’t stepped up. The halftime series have been phenomenal! I have seen the ones of Rip, Manu and Horace Jenkins and they have been great TV. The only missing piece is that they weren’t in HD.

Anyone who thought the series was over after the Spurs went up 2-0 had already forgotten what happened to them in the Seattle series. They just havent been great away from home this year. Not great, but capable of winning when pushed hard. Which makes tonights game 5 all the more exciting.

I understand why the NBA wants to bring in the legends of the game. That’s what the focus groups said. That older potential viewers missed the legends of the NBA. Well, beyond the fact that 18-34 is the coveted demographic for our TV partners, to paraphrase Rick Pitino “Larry Bird, Dr J, Magic Johnson and Michael Jordon aren’t playing in an NBA game anytime soon”. Putting the legends in our commercials isn’t going to convince older viewers that they might, or that our current players are their peers.

The NBA product is amazing right now. The games are fun to watch. Every playoff matchup has had drama and excitement. The product is good and not only that, it is working for our advertisers. So why in the world are we selling what we don’t have?

The last time a mashup of old and new worked was when Aerosmith and Run DMC re worked Walk This Way. The NBA attempt at a mashup of old and new just isn’t working.

The first thing any salesperson learns is “Sell what you have”.

Can we please market and sell whatwe have… Drama, intense action, passion, fun, excitement, rabid fans,athleticism, and great guys playing a great game in a waythat can appeal to all demographics. If we market the fun and benefits of the product we have, more people would get into the games. Trying to show off the Legends of the game might be great for ESPN Classic Sports, but it’s not going to get prospective fans, and those on the cuspto make an appointment with their TV to turn on ABC tonight at 9pm EST.

Our biggest challenge is in those cities who don’t have NBA teams. So how about this for an idea this upcoming season. In addition to sending teams to Europe and around the world to build interest, why not start camp a little early and send teams to cities like Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Kansas City, Columbus and others of similar sizes to build awareness and excitement for our game and players? Start off the week with an open tryout in that city, pick one or two players to work out with the team for that week and build some local excitement. It would buildandextend our fanbase in those cities. It would expose the local media and fans to our players, where they can see what we are really like. It would be selling the product we have to the fans and customer we need the most… What a concept!

Finally, the ratings. It seems like thats a big a topic as the games themselves. I personally have been pleasantly suprised at how good they were. I didn’t expect them to match last year. As I have said before, people love trainwreck TV and that’s exactly what last years finals were, the trainwreck of the Lakers, which I enjoyed as much as the next person.

This year is about the games, the players who play them and what fans look for in a World Championship Series.. It’s all there.

Now if we had combined great marketing with all the great things we have seen on TV, who knows how good they could have been the first 4 games. From here on out however, I think the games will more than compensate for other mistakes. It’s a best of 3 series between two great teams, and that will make for great TV and ratings.

What bloggers are saying about the NBA Finals

ShareThis

So I’m catching up on my tech news and I come across this headline…

Macrovision Files Lawsuit Against Sima and Interburn’s DVD Copying Products
Macrovision Corporation (Nasdaq: MVSN – News) announced today that it has filed suit against Sima Products Corporation (“Sima”) and Interburn Enterprises Inc. (“Interburn”). The lawsuit charges that Sima’s “Video Enhancers,” which are principally used to allow consumers to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted DVDs, infringe Macrovision’s patented copy protection technology and also violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).

Which got me completely confused on several fronts.

According to MacroVision CEO Bill Krepick, “Sima and Interburn infringe Macrovision’s intellectual property by offering products that enable users to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted content by illegally removing our copy protection system.”

Now maybe I’m reading this wrong, but the way I understand it, the CEO of MacroVision, a company that sells copy protection software to DVD publishers, is sending out a press release saying…

“Our software doesn’t work. It sucks.We can’t stop a bunch of little companies from writing software that completely busts our copy protection that we are selling for millions of dollars to publishers.”

If that’s the case, why in the world are DVD publishers paying Macrovision any money at all?

It’s not like they can stop ripoff shops that illegally rip DVDs, and manufacture counterfeit DVDs and sell them on the streets around the world. The cat’s obviously out of the bag. The software is readily available for those crooks.

For the folks who want to upload DVDs illegally for distribution on P2P sites, once again the cat is out of the bag and has been for years. It’s been easy for these bad guys and girls to crack the Macrovision code and make the content available in any number of file formats.

So if Macrovision can’t stop the bad guys, just what exactly is their purpose in life?

For the Average Joes, it’s not like its easy to rip a DVD. The time it takes, and the processes that you must go through, and then the size of the files, all make it more trouble than its worth to try to copy it to your harddrive to watch from your PC or say your laptop when you are travelling. In spite of the fact that you bought your DVD legally and own it fair and square.

For the average joes, it’s not easy to make a backup copy of the DVD that you know your little kid is going to scratch, or in my case, that I scratch from handling and playing often. Not only is it not easy, but because of the Macrovision copyprotection, it’s completely illegal, despite the fact that you paid your hard earned money for the DVD.

So just what is the purpose of having Macrovision copy protection on DVDs?To raise the price to consumers? To make things more difficult for them? To make sure its illegal to backup DVDs we have purchased?

Am I missing something here?

I could see if the stuff worked and it kept the bad guys from doing bad things. Then it would have to be a price consumers paid. Publishershave a right to protect their content.But, it obviously doesn’t work. If it did, there would be nothing to sue anyone over. Instead they would be taking out ads saying how they kicked all the bad guys’ asses. But they aren’t. They are suing companies and admitting their software sucks.

So hows bout we cut consumers a break and get this shit away from our DVDs.

<blog discussions>

ShareThis

Larry Brown raised the point after game 2 vs the Spurs that the Pistons were 1-7 when Danny Crawford or Ron Garretson officiated their playoff games. Of course we all know that it’s just happenstance that its turned out that way.If the Pistons just happen to play poorly when one of those two officials were on the court, that’s just the way it goes…..

Since Coach Brown brought it up, I decided to update the Mavs “standing by official” for playoffs since the 2001 season, when we played the Twolves in the first round.

Here is our win loss record when any of the following officials are on the court in the games that have occured since then.

Our total record during those playoff runs is 21 Wins and 25 Losses.

It’s just interesting information that I thought you might be curious to see and would be fun to talk with friends about over a beer.

*this list only includes active officials

ShareThis

I’m going to go out on a limb and tell they NBA they are creating huge problems for themselves by not having an
official with a direct line of communication to the ABC broadcasters.

Hubie Brown and Al Michaels are fun, informative and entertaining broadcasters. Hubie knows the game.
Heknows it well. His insights reflect those of a coach who has turned a team around and fought the playoff
wars.Al ads color and continuity and does a good job of it.

Al doesn’t pretend to know the rules.Hubie however, knows some rules , but unfortunatelygets a bunch
of them wrong.

When he does, it hurts the NBA because it gives fans an incorrect understanding of what the rules actually are.
Why is this aproblem? Well if a fan thinks a rule is enforced one way, when in actuality it is enforced
completely the opposite, that fan is going to think the refs aren’t doing their jobs.He or she is going to get
very mad everytime that “missed call” goes against his/her team and that can only hurt the impression the fan has of
the NBA and our officials.

Let me give you the prime example, the block charge rule and the “restricted area” around the basket. For some
reason, Hubie and pretty much everyone else thinks that if a defensive player is inside the circle near the basket,
that no matter what happens, if there is contact, it’s a block – a foul on the defender. Wrongo cupcake.

There are multiple scenarios where the defender
can be standing inside the circle. He can be right underneath the basket for that matter, and it can be a
charge.

1. The circle only applies to a 2ndary defender. If Ben Wallace runs over the guy who is actively guarding him, it
doesn’t matter if it’s at midcourt or right under the basket, it’s a charge. On the other hand if Ben gets by his
defender, and Bowen slides over to try to take a charge, and he is in the circle, it doesn’t matter if he is set and
has been waiting there for 10 minutes. It’s a block.

2. UNLESS, and this is a very important exception that NO ANNOUNCER or media person, and most coaches and players
don’t seem to understand:

From NBA.Com – EXCEPTION: Any player may be legally
positioned within the “restricted area” if the offensive player receives the ball within the Lower Defensive Box.

Which means if a player starts his drive near the baseline, and runs over a guy in the restricted area,
whether it’s the primary or 2ndary defender, it’s a charge. The player can point to the floor all he wants, but it’s
a charge.

Them is the rules.

I don’t expect every announcer to have the rulebook and case studies memorized. That’s for geeks like me. I do
expect the NBA to recognize the issue and offer what would be a very simple fix.

It could be handled in 1 of 2 ways. Someone who is watching the game from the NBA office could be available by
phone, or better yet, there is now a backup official at every game in the event one of the officials is injured. (We
had this happen in our Suns series. Steve Javie pulled a hammie and Jess Kersey was there to jump for the 2nd half).
Why not get the backup official a game feed and a telephone. Allow a single ABC producer of the game to call him with
questions and allow him to explain what happened in situations or to correct the announcers if there is a
problem.

I would also offer the media access to the coaches website. This website offers examples of plays for various
rules so that teams can see examples of how various rules will be called. There isn’t anything very proprietary
and it’s very well done and easy to use.

It can only make the broadcast better. So why not do it?

And while I’m on the topic of officials let me add some color to an old truism about refs…They are only human.

Yes they are. They aren’t perfect and some are going to be better at their jobs than others. That’s just the way
it is. But what I think many inside the game, and fans don’t understand, is that they do their jobs in much the same
way we all try to do our jobs. They recognize their strengths and play to them.

No two refs would or could ever call a game exactly the same way. As much as the league really works hard to make
sure that all rules are enforced equally and evenly from game to game, it’s just impossible.

Officials can only call what they see. The reality is that the game moves so fast, officials have to focus on
areas where they can see, digest and react to what is happening. Some are able to see more of the court, some less.
Some are able to see everything that happens on the ball, some have to focus primarily on the defender to look for
contact.

I also think, and this is my opinion, that some refs place more of an emphasis on controlling the game, while
others just try to call the game as it occurs. What I mean by this is that some officials are able to add the context
of the game when making calls. WhatI DON’T mean by that is that they will call the playoffs differently than
they will regular season games.

What I do mean is that they will try to take into account what is going on and try to make sure that the game
doesn’t become overly physical. When Joe Johnson got hurt in that horrific fall, Dick Bavettacalled a flagrant
foul on Jerry Stackhouse. It wasn’t a flagrant foul. I’m sure Dick knew it wasn’t. The extra possession given to the
Suns could have cost the Mavs the game. But, Dick understood as well as anyone that if the Suns felt like it was a
dirty play, the physical contact in the game could have escalated and maybe got out of control. He used context to
make the call and did the right thing.

Across a playoff series, when you have officials geared towards calling strictly by the book. you might get a game
with 40 free throws per team. When you have those geared towards flow, you might get 15 free throws per team.

AlthoughI prefer the by the rule book approach, neither is right or wrong.Each official has their
approach to doing their job,just as all of us do.Once an official gets to the level of doingthe NBA
Finals, it’s been reinforced to them over the many years theyhave officiated, that it’s the correct way for
them to work. That’s why they are in the Finals.

The point of this is twofold:

First, the league needs to do a better job communicating to fans and media about the nature of the job and things
as simple as offering explanations in realtime during the playoffs and especially during the Finals. I think it will
make watching the games all the more enjoyable.

2nd, because of the nature of the game, officiating a playoff series “The right way” may look different game to
game. That some officials abilities may match up better with one team’s style of play than another.

That’s not a problem, it’s just a reality. The more fans and media understand that, the more we can appreciate
what we arewatching inthis great Finals matchup between the Spurs and the Pistons

And to answer the question I keep on getting….

I’m rooting for…the series to go 7 games. For obvious reasons!

ShareThis

I’m going to stray from the topics I normally cover to talk about gold.

The NY Times Magazine had some great articles on Hedge Funds and investing. One article in particular caught my attention.

The article was about gold and the people who follow it as an investment and those who believe it is the foundation of our world’s economy. As the article states, “To a small but extremely avid subculture in the American financial community, gold doesn’t mean bling, or King Midas, or them thar hills. Gold is money; and not just money, but the one true money.”

Which got me thinking and made me ask the question… Why do people still think that gold has any more significance than any other precious metal or commodity?

I understand that gold was a common denominator as currency between countries startingmore than athousandsyears ago. I understand that until it was delinked from our currency that it was possible to exchange currency for gold and that created a “world currency.”

But the world has changed since then. Where gold acted as the ultimate hedge against the devaluation of currency in the past, that is no longer the case. Gold is priced in dollars. Not services or other commodities.If the markets and economies were to crash, a basement full of gold bullion would just take space. I couldn’t imagine farmers trading chickens and milk cows or fresh vegetables for gold bullion. For guns , ammunition, gasand oil, yes. For gold no.

Nor could I imagine a scenario where our currency was completely devalued and a gold standard was reinstituted. The reality is that ourpopulation , and the world population has gotten too big. There isnt enough gold in the world, let alone in the US to reconstitute a new currency based on gold.

So to get to the point. Its easy to understand why the US needs to maintain oil reserves. Without, the country could grind to a halt. Government oil reserves would at least allow us to fight over who got to keep their lights on and their cars running.

What I don’t understand is why we still keep $10 billion dollars worth of gold stashed in depositories around the country.

My suggestion, let’s sell it.

Let’s sell ita little bitat a time so that we don’t freak out the markets and decimate the price.

Let’s sell it and pay down some of this country’s debt. I know its just a dent. But in order to pay off a debt, you have to make the first payment.

Let’s sell it before some other countrybeats us to it.

Let’s sell it while the price is over $42 per troy ounce.

Just storing and protecting all of that gold has got to cost a fortune. Let’s jump into the 21st century and sell it all.

And for the record, I’m not part of any organizations discussing this. I have not had any contact with the government regarding this idea. I am not part of any conspiracy although I fully expect to be entertained by such suggestions and by all the educational comments Im sure to receive on this post.

ShareThis