One you miss is that if other companies in your industry are RTO, and you don't, the first quarter you under-perform your competitors, your shareholders and activist investors will blame the fact that you haven't RTO when all your competitors have ... !obviously! that is the key issue. Effectively, if everyone else is, you cannot afford not to.
also - they never paid the music publishers, as the purchaser/subscriber obtained the ringtone they purchased/subscribed for, but rarely "cashed in" the subscription "credits" for additional ringtones, and the music publishers were only paid for ringtones actually downloaded ... so it was also a con on the music industry.
As someone who unfortunately worked for a ringtone vendor for a shot period, the main thrust of the "industry" was mis-selling a hidden/deceptive "subscription" service to children, which was billed through automatic premium rate mobile phone charges. It was a con-job where phone companies and shady ringtone companies conspired tp rip off children who were too embarrassed to tell their parents they screwed up by unknowingly entering into the subscription (by texting something to some number), and couldn't work out how to cancel the subscription (because this was made insanely hard). And then the next month they would get charged again.
These people were scum.
"I have a friend who is developing and marketing a tool that solves the exact problem you have identified - let me put you in contact with him - perhaps the two of you can come to an arrangement"
I can be that friend, if you don't know anybody else ;-)
Lots of technical discussions - but the real answer is that bittorrent/P2P was displaced by Netflix for all but a small number of hard-core users. That, combined with legal threats, and that p2p required volume/scale to work well, meant that the critical mass died. It was a sad day that we, the users of the internet, en-mass exchanged bittorrent for streaming companies.
I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer (and not a french Corporate Law lawyer). I've also founded 2 tech startups. It sounds like a poor deal - alternatively it's a low opening bid ... get better legal/commercial advice on this one.
Not so daft if you consider that it is easier to segment, stratify, and control people in a linear city, as the structure itself acts as a continuous and infinitely adaptable choke point. This seems consistent with Saudi elite's ideas on managing their society.
tight tolerances and repeatability is mostly a combined rigidity and resolution issue, which is functionally equivalent to a cost issue. Add more money. Unfortunately there is a point where programming and hardware costs is higher than a skilled artisan ... hence the profession!
The distinction becoming vague is due to the changes regarding the Bologna Process/European Qualification Framework - whereby both Universities and Technical Colleges both award bachelor degrees (EQF6) ... and if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and awards the same EQF paper at the end, then it's the same! I've taught in a programme that is offered in both Universities and Technical Colleges (Law) ... and the distinction becomes that universities are more theory based, whereas technical colleges are more practical ... and that matriculating into a university offered masters programme in NL from a technical college awarded bachelors is made harder (even with the same EQF6 paper) ... not that any other university in the EU would care about the distinction!
fake it till you make it ;-) The company I suspect is "faking it" is https://www.lawgeex.com/ ... as an outsourced legal contract review company their "valuation" and trajectory is significantly lower than that of the same AI contract review company
You said: "However, I have used several startups options of AI document review and they all fall apart with any sort of prodding for specific answers. "
I think you will find that this is because they "outsource" the AI contract document review "final check" to real lawyers based in Utah ... so, it's actually a person, not really a wholy-AI based solution (which is what the company I am thinking of suggests in their marketing material)
Smart companies operating in CN seeking to minimise IP theft tend to "Own" the mold, and carefully manage its use and production - to ensure that there are e.g. no 3rd shift production "overruns". Producing the mold separately from the factory which uses it is not unknown, as is having a western employee tallying what comes off the production line. Molds at the end of their useful life (either because the item is no longer in production, or the mold is worn out) should be physically destroyed, and that destruction verified (angle grinder cutting it up is not uncommon - with a western staffperson overseeing that destruction.).
Labels ARE shareholders in Spotify.
There is absolutely a conflict of interest regarding how Spotify handles its rights/royalties negotiations when the licensees are an oligopoly, who derive value from both sides of the transaction, and represent downstream beneficiaries who have no say in the deal struck or prices paid.
Spotify and Labels together screw musicians, acting separately, and together.
"I had one source who insisted that the capital came from Hong Kong but when I asked for more details he mostly insulted me for not being able to figure it out myself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. "
China can cross-identify Pornhub "customers" against other state owned tech asset's datasets (e.g. tictoc) ... valuable leverage against identified individuals?