The Last Lecture
I went to a Border’s bookstore today, which had put “The Last Lecture” by Randy Pausch’s book on special display. I had already watched his popular “Last Lecture: Achieving Your Childhood Dreams” Youtube video many months ago and watched the Diane Sawyer interview with my wife, so I was familiar with his story and the great message he had. I didn’t know there was a book, so I picked it up and immediately opened it to chapter 49, “Get in Touch with Your Crayon Box,” where he wrote:
People who know me sometimes complain that I see things in black or white.
In fact, one of my colleagues would tell people: “Go to Randy if you want black-and-white advice. But if you want gray advice, he’s not the guy.”
…
As I’ve gotten older, though, I’ve leaned to appreciate that a good crayon box might have more than two colors. But I still think that if you run your life the right way, you’ll wear out the black and the white before the more nuanced colors.
Needless to say, I bought the book, went home, and immediately read the entire thing. It’s really great, and I think a lot of people would do well to read it. Randy Pausch really was a great example of someone with a wonderful sense of life, and seeing his attitude towards situation is a great source of inspiration. The beginning of the introduction to the book almost says it all:
I have an engineering problem.
While for the most part I’m in terrific physical shape, I have ten tumors in my liver and I have only a few months left to live.
I am a father of three young children, and married to the woman of my dreams. While I could easily feel sorry for myself, that wouldn’t do them, or me, any good.
So, how to spend my very limited time?
After reading his book, I can say that I really like his answer.
Tags: [randy pausch, the last lecture]Man with a Plan
I’ve watched a bit of the Democratic convention tonight, and I noticed a number of references to Barak’s “plans.” I can’t remember the issues, but when an issue was brought up the speaker would refer to some Obama plan that was going to fix everything. It reminded me of a passage in Atlas Shrugged between Hank Rearden and some of the bad guys:
Tags: [democrats obama atlas shrugged]“We have worked out a plan,” said Dr. Ferris too cheerfully, “which will solve the problems of the steel industry and which will meet with your full approval, as a measure providing for the general welfare, while protecting your interests and insuring your safety in a—”
“Don’t try to tell me what I’m going to think. Give me the facts.”
“It is a plan which is fair, sound, equitable and—”
“Don’t tell me your evaluation. Give me the facts.”
“It is a plan which—” Dr. Ferris stopped; he had lost the habit of naming facts.
Pandora in trouble
As one of the few bloggers who cares to defend the SoundExchange decision to hike internet royalty rates for those who choose to use the immoral government royalty-rate system (sorry, I have to keep saying it, because nobody else will), I feel I should comment on the recent news that Pandora is about to pull the plug. Lately a number of news articles have come out, and their headlines usually amount to “Music business about to kill internet radio.”
As reported on afterdawn.com:
According to Pandora founder Tim Westergren, the hugely popular web radio site is about to go offline, citing new pressures from the record labels that will double royalties paid to the copyright owners.
To put this situation in stunning clarity, Pandora has over 1 million listeners per day but three quarters of all revenue for 2008 will got to paying off royalty fees. A recent decision by a federal panel will make those fees even higher by next year. By 2010, Internet Radio royalty fees will be about 180 percent higher than those of satellite radio.
Westergren adds,“this is like a last stand for webcasting, we’re losing money as it is. The moment we think this problem in Washington is not going to get solved, we have to pull the plug because all we’re doing is wasting money.”
For an article that’s supposed to put the situation in “stunning clarity,” it’s missing a lot of facts. As most articles on this issue do, it just describes the incredible royalty rate jump and leaves it to you to assume that it’s not fair. And at first glance, it’s completely understandable to think that something’s not right. But like every issue, you have to look at all of the facts that are relevant to the issue, figure out what principles should be applied, and then cut out the non-essentials. On this issue, that means you have to throw away all of the emotion and ambiguous notions of “fairness” and answer the basic question: Who owns the music? Who gets to control its publication and reproduction? And that’s where the webcasters lose on this issue. Their answer is that *they* should get control (or at least some control) at the expense of the artist’s rights to their own works.
Also, I’d suggest you take a look at Westergren’s quote above and look at who he’s asking for help. He’s not asking artists to offer their music for free publicity on Pandora. He’s not trying to negotiate with record labels to get a lower rate. Instead, he’s asking Washington for help. He needs the government to force a lower royalty rate on all music artists. To keep him from “wasting” his money (i.e. paying royalties that he thinks are too high).
As neat as a service like Pandora may be, I don’t sympathize with Pandora on this. If they can’t afford to pay for the service they’re trying to offer their customers, they shouldn’t be in that business.
Tags: [internet radio, royalties]When cell contracts are ruled illegal…
If you have a cell phone, you’re probably under a contract. The contracts are usually long with loads of fine print, but they all boils down to a simple deal: The cell phone provider will provide cell phone service for you, so long as you pay them for it. There are many different types of cell phone contracts, but the most popular one these days is one where the customer signs an agreement to stay with a cell phone provider for the 2-3 years in exchange for a heavily-discounted phone. And if you choose to break that contract, you agree to pay a penalty (usually $200-$300). This type of contract really isn’t that special, for I’m sure you can find similar arrangements over all types of businesses.
But not for long. Yesterday, news broke about a ruling out of California that stated that the early-termination fees are “illegal.” Sprint must pay back about $18 million in early-termination fees to its California customers and stop trying to collect on $54 million in fees not paid. I haven’t been able to find a court document or news story that explains the judge’s reasons for the ruling, but I bet it can’t be good. I don’t know if I even want to know how a judge can rationalize why the government must step in and nullify this one section of an explicit, voluntary contract. I’ve read a lot of commentary about this ruling, though, and I think the following statement is a good example of the general opinion that many have about this.
From Mark Selfe at the Red Herring blog:
I’m all for the idea of setting up purchase plans directly with the manufacturers and not the subsidized carriers. This gives the consumer more control. When I buy a car I’m not forced to sign up with a gas company to exclusively buy their gas for the next two years. It just doesn’t make any sense.
What’s missing in this argument (and in most people’s arguments on this) is the fact that a customer made a commitment to pay that fee for leaving early. In exchange for that commitment, the customer received something from the cell phone provider. It might have been a new, fancy phone, or a cheaper monthly rate than someone who won’t make a long commitment. By what right could a customer feel entitled to break that agreement, especially when he or she has already received something in advance (like a fancy cell phone)? There’s another word for that: Theft. It’s like buying something with a bad check. You can walk out of the store with the item, but it’s not yours. And at that point it’s not just a matter of returning the goods, it’s also a matter of dealing with the fact that you knowingly stole something from another individual.
The government’s proper role in situations like these are to enforce the contracts. I know there are problems with our legal system, but it boggles my mind that it can really be so bad that the government would actively take a role in making sure that customers were let out of the contracts they signed. Selfe says that it gives consumers “more control,” but he has it backwards. Without a government that will enforce contracts, our word means nothing. Nobody would enter a long-term agreement with another individual if they knew that nothing would happen if the agreement were broken.
I think the government’s role in enforcing contracts is just one side of this situation, though. Another side is the value of one’s word. Should you do what you say you are going to do? Should you fulfill your commitments? Sadly, I don’t think most people think about this. Or worse, they don’t even care. Some are hopeful this could help them out of their own contract, some have grand ideas about how the cell phone industry “should work,” but hardly anybody will say, “I will honor my agreement because I said I would.”
For anybody who is happy about this ruling, I have one simple question: How much is your word worth?
Tags: [No Tags]