Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Howdy, I have done some research over the last hour and I am fairly confident in saying that the SB2 and the 4 amendments filed to date are unrelated to the merger in any way. An SB2 is to allow "small business issuers" to register securities to be sold for cash. In this case, it is to allow the 96M shares acquired under the Marketing Agreement to be sold.
An SB2 is a prospectus.
This is the original filing to which this is the 4th Amendment
This is an offering of 96,290,414 shares of common stock by two selling stockholders. The shares are being registered to permit public secondary trading of the shares that are being offered by the selling stockholders named in this prospectus. We will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of the shares.
It has nothing to do with the merger.
"I told you before you read this First4 was crashing and burning"
Yes you did. And it was just as untrue then as it is now.
Howdy, I don't see how this latest filing relates to the S4. It gives the reason for the filing at the beginning:
The Registrant hereby amends this registration statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this registration statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 or until the registration statement shall become
effective on such date as the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to said section 8(a), may determine.
This was the same reason given for the 3rs amendment filed at the end of June. I think all that is happening is that just before quarter end they are rolling over the original SB2 and updating it with each new quarters figures and any subsequent events of note.
Its still confusing. Could it be 2 different CDs?
"documented proof that First4 is crashing and burning"
But according to Leigh Ann Hardie, VP of strategic initiatives and publicity for EMI CMG Label Group, “incorrect setting were used during the CD’s mastering process which inadvertently bars the consumer from making burns or digital copies – a result that was not intended.”
Your conclusion is a bit over the top. The cause given was incorrect settings and doesn't in any way say that the product was to blame. Wouldn't the same happen if MediaMax was accidently set to allow 0 burns, instead of 3? That is just a parameter that the labels can set after all.
I don't want to sound alarmist, but that document seems to be just another amendment to the already files SB2.
<FILENAME>sb2_4th-amend.txt
<DESCRIPTION>MEDIAMAX SB2 4TH AMENDMENT
I can't see how that in any way progresses the merger. It has no SunnComm figures included and on first perusal, seems little different to what was filed before.
Corey, BTW EMI is a UK company, not Australian
t d j, its fine to speculate on "increased usage" by the labels. But the fact of the matter is that we were being told by many here that the increased usage had already begun at the beginning of Q3 and now we are told that Q3 is flat over Q2. That is the only official guidance on production volumes released to date - "production ... has remained steady throughout the 2nd and 3rd quarters".
The rest is just speculation based on the number of titles on the support page and it is obvious that all the speculation has been wrong, based on Peter's guidance.
Yes, but we already know that Q4 is about 40% of the year's business, so of course it will be the largest production period so far.
But you have also said that "SunnComm is adding business as well as current customers increasing their business with SunnComm, so the growth is exponential". So if that is the case, why is Q3 flat against Q2?
Are you now saying that all the talk of exponential growth and ramp up that was happening at the beginning of Q3 didn't happen, but it will happen in Q4? I am not going to go back over previous posts, but I am sure many here will recall all the posts telling us of explosive growth and ramp up near the start of Q3.
But there was NO GROWTH between Q2 and Q3, even though we were told that "SunnComm is adding business as well as current customers increasing their business with SunnComm" at an exponential rate.
To use your example, Q3 with NO growth should be the same as Q2, but with "add customers + addl. business" we should have been seeing "600% , 800% or even 1000% growth". But according to Peter, we have had NO GROWTH Q3 over Q2.
So assuming we hit about 16M by end Q3 (guessing 2M, 8M and 8M for 1st 3 quarters) and Q4 is at upper projection of 43% of business for year, that gives us about 28M CDs for year. 12M in Q4 is 43% of 28M.
What happened to the 145M conservative estimate?
jr, I try to avoid guessing the intent behind the PRs. The 3Q v 2Q statement is a disappointment nonetheless. Some here were assuring us that the ramp-up went into full swing at the beginning of Q3. Now we are being officially told that Q3 will be no different from Q2. Some ramp-up.
Possibly, but still exponential growth would imply a sharp upward curve, not 6 months of no growth. Making comparisons on 2004 figures, which was just a startup year, would not be a suitable metric for projected future growth, which the statement implies IMO.
This doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone rationalize these two statements....
Production related to the Company’s market leading MediaMax product has remained steady throughout the 2nd and 3rd quarters of this year.
Our current business of protecting commercial and promotional music CDs is growing exponentially, as evidenced by the large number of Gold and Platinum Billboard charting hits that MediaMax has protected in just the last 5 months.
How could it remain steady and be growing exponentially at the same time? Not bashing, just confused.
Also, if production has remained steady throughout 2nd and 3rd quarters, that means that 3Q revenue is going to be similar to 2Q.
More pressure on Apple
Because of its Windows Media DRM support, this phone should be able to get the tracks off a MediaMax protected CD without problems.
Nokia's iPod-killer phone slips to 2006
Finns blame Microsoft DRM
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Thursday 22nd September 2005 05:02 GMT
Nokia only began to partner with Microsoft earlier this year - but already it's showing signs of catching Longhorn Syndrome.
The Finnish phone giant has confirmed that its would-be iPod killer, the N91 music phone, will miss the Christmas shopping season, and won't now ship until Q1 2006.
"What we basically decided is that we will postpone it a few weeks, push it out to Q1 and do this Microsoft DRM implementation solidly," explained Nokia's music chief Jonas Geust this week.
Nokia wants N91 owners to get their music using the same interface whether it's from a PC, directly over the air via 3G or GPRS, or from each other over Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.
Geust also insisted that the carriers were showing a strong interest in the N91. Motorola's long-awaited iTunes phone, the ROKR, finally arrived last week on Cingular's network, but without the ability to buy music over the air. Carriers have reportedly been reluctant to allow Apple to replicate it's dominant position in the PC download space on mobile devices. They want some of that action themselves.
Nokia has announced two significant partnerships with Microsoft this year. At 3GSM in Cannes, the two announced a deal to bring music supporting Microsoft Windows Media DRM to Nokia handsets without any need for transcoding. And earlier this week, the Nokia launched a corporate mobile email infrastructure with support for Exchange Server licensed from Microsoft.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/22/nokia_n91_slips/
OT - Sunny,
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
I was being hypothetical.
What if you bought on margin? You borrow $2000 and put in $1000 of your own. If the shares go to zero, you are down 300%. It all depends on what one defines as the invested amount. Is it $1K or $3K. One could argue each point.
sahd3, problem is SCMI is down twice as much as MVSN percentagewise.
Berg
Also, with this new filing from MMXT are we closer to the merger?
This is just an amended filing. It is an amendment to the 10KSB that was filed on March 30th this year. That was the annual report for 2004. It has just some very minor changes.
The original is 13th down on this list:
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=mediamax+technology&CIK=&filenum=&State=...
This amended filing is unrelated to the merger and does not throw any light on its progress.
Howdy,
I've read that post and do not come to the same conclusion as you. The problem they see in Sony's music player is that it only supports Sony DRM protected files, but does not support MP3s. MP3 files are not protected by any DRM.
MediaMax relies on Windows Media DRM (a proprietary DRM) to protect the music once it is downloaded to a PC and also needs Windows Media DRM to protect those files if moved to another device. If the files were in MP3 format, they could not be protected if moved to another device, since there is no DRM for MP3. In fact I'm sure I read in a PR recently that MediaMax could also produce Sony DRM files with V5 and on-the-fly. The pressure on Apple is to allow MediaMax to produce Apple protected DRM files.
All of these are proprietary DRMs and MediaMax can only function if the downloaded files are in one of these formats. To allow MP3 files to be downloaded or created on-the-fly, would create a gaping hole in our protection.
Kenco, what I am surprised about in the response from that lady is that the pressure on Apple from BMG, Sony etc. is not to ask Apple to use a different DRM, but to allow MediaMax to produce Apple's DRM with its on the fly technology. They want Apple to license their DRM to SunnComm.
If Apple were to do that, then audio quality wouldn't be an issue.
CGI, I don't get you. It was a KOCH pr, not an SCMI pr.
Flydoc, this should answer your question, although there may be more than those listed in the PR.
In August 2004, KOCH Records chose to include SunnComm's MediaMax technology on the most recent album from Boyz II Men named "Throwback." KOCH will utilize the technology on upcoming releases from BG, D-Block, Black Ice and M1.
Fact is, SunnComm was at, and participated at NARM.
And your proof of that is........?
It would be more credible and better news if it didn't come from a SunnComm/MediaMax PR.
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050810/290/fpbbq.html
Re-reading the article, I now see that it is in fact composed of 3 unrelated items, which makes me convinced the count at the end is unrelated to dual disks.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7652876
The main section is an article by Christman on Mix and Burn's upgraded kiosks. The article title is: Retail Track: Kiosks Move Forward.
Then there is a completely unrelated section on dual disks that has a section header in caps, preceeded by some blank lines, to differentiate it from the main article:
DUAL JUGGERNAUT: Despite five consumers ........
There then is another unrelated item with its own caps header (preceeded by a few blank lines):
IF YOU'RE COUNTING: Sony BMG has "12 million copy.......
I'm not a billboard subscriber, but I have been able to get a synopsis of that article:
These are EXCERPTS from the article you requested.
Retail Track: Kiosks Move Forward
September 03, 2005 -ED CHRISTMAN
Mix & Burn introduced upgraded kiosks, approved by Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, at the National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers convention Aug. 11-14 in San Diego.
The kiosks allow retail customers to purchase, download and play major-label content on portable devices compliant with Windows Media Player 10.
While this may sound reasonable¿what with the kiosk planned all along to serve as a filling station for portable players¿the twist is that, until now, the technology could not provide for a seamless transaction.
To read the complete article, please Log In.
http://www.vnuemedia.com/bb/login/login_subscribe.jsp?id=Qdl1svpWW4UWrsmvyewxbdL2I2mdsWBaxZFqQtrj7UB....
None of the excerpts relate to Dual Disks or the Count, suggesting that those later two sections are independent of each other and the main article.
It's the sentence after that that makes me doubt that those last 2 paragraphs are about dual disks.
Meanwhile, EMI expects to have 10 copy-protected releases out by year's end, but Universal Music and Warner Music Group are not aggressively pursuing the technology at this time, according to sources within those companies.
If they were talking dual disks in those last two paragraphs, then that final sentence just doesn't make sense based on what was said in the body of the article, as I pointed out in my previous post.
"These are not numbers for copy protected audio cd's."
I'm don't agree with that. These groups of lines seem to suggest that the count is for normal copy protected CDs, not dual disks.
Meanwhile, an executive at EMI says the company is not releasing DualDisc titles because of margin issues.
But at the end of the article...
Meanwhile, EMI expects to have 10 copy-protected releases out by year's end, but Universal Music and Warner Music Group are not aggressively pursuing the technology at this time, according to sources within those companies.
Also compare these....
Universal Music & Video Distribution president Jim Urie acknowledged that retailers are very interested in the DualDisc. "We will have 30 titles coming out in the format by the end of the year," he said. These will be simultaneous releases as well as reissues of existing titles and catalog.
and at the end of the article.....
Meanwhile, EMI expects to have 10 copy-protected releases out by year's end, but Universal Music and Warner Music Group are not aggressively pursuing the technology at this time, according to sources within those companies.
If Sony/BMG together putting out 100 dual disk titles by year end is called "leading the charge" and "committed to the technology", then Universal on its own putting out 30 titles could hardly be called "not aggressively pursuing the technology". Those incompatiable statements only make sense if the two last paragraphs are counts related to CD Audio protected disks only.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7652876
Also, saying Universal is not aggressively pursuing the technology at this time is consistent with statements Universal have made in several articles in the past year or two in relation to CD Audio protected disks.
Mario,
but I can assure you scmi has solo rev's and its legal,ethical and correct. thx., Mario
So the statement in the SEC filing is wrong?
Mario, the last time you were here you promised to research this reveneue question with the CFO and get back to me. What was his reply? To refresh your memory, the "solo" revenue you refer to must be licensing revenue as you used it to increase the calculated average licensing revenue per CD from 2.5 to 3.5 cents or thereabouts. This is my question again and is a response to a post of yours. Either the statement in your post is untrue or the statement in the SEC filing is untrue from how I read it.
Mario,
scmi has solo mostly pre-mmxt contracts that bring additional revenues.
So you are saying this statement in the quarterly filing is not true?
The Agreement provides the Company with 40% of the revenues derived from all existing licensing agreements held by SunnComm and future revenue generating agreements for the technology.
There is no room for "solo" in that statement just as the use of the word "exclusive" in the actual agreement also precludes SunnComm from earning revenue from the sale of SunnComm products that are not shared with MediaMax Tech.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7435669
Neil,
I will research the specificity of the solo/scmi revenues with our CFO and get back to you on that
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7437641
Corey,
AMX, do you think this new IPOD will be mediamax friendly?????
With all due respect, unless you mean will the new iPod support Windows Media files, then your question doesn't make sense to me.
The pressure that the labels are putting on Apple regarding support for Mediamax has nothing to do with Apple changing Fairplay DRM or the devices that support it (iPod etc.). They are requesting that Apple allow SunnComm to include a program on the CD that will produce Fairplay files "On The Fly", just as Microsoft allows us currently to include code to produce Windows Media Files "On The Fly". Those Fairplay files could then be moved to an iPod just like Fairplay files downloaded from iTunes.
Apple doesn't need to change anything for us. We just want them to give us a license to produce files in THEIR format.
There was some talk here that MediaMax would strenghten Apple's DRM, which we all know has deficiencies. That is incorrect. MediaMax doesn't work that way. MediaMax controls copying of a physical CD and is code that resides on the PC. MediaMax prevents the normal audio of a CD from being accessed, but really has little control over the "On The Fly" generated compressed files that it produces. When Mediamax produces a Windows Media File and stores it on a PC, from then on it is Windows Media DRM that protects those files and not MediaMax. Similarly if Apple allows us to produce Fairplay files, once those files are downloaded to a PC or MAC, Apple's Fairplay DRM takes over. Those files will be just as vulnerable as if they had been copied direct from iTunes. And if moved off to an iPod or other device that supports Fairplay DRM, those files will contain nothing specific to MediaMax that those devices could act on.
Howdy, don't you think you are pushing this NARM CD a bit too much?
There wasn't one official mention of Mediamax from NARM at the recent conference based on the published papers. The researcher who has advised our investment club in the past attended several events and never heard Mediamax being discussed. NARM does not and never has been the vehicle for deciding on the best copy protection technology. The labels themselves are evaluating which technology to use and only they have the means to compare which technology is best. That is why we see them taking different approaches.
Can you produce one document or one statement from anyone that is associated with NARM that recommends Mediamax over and above competitive products?
I already produced the presentation made by Mitch Bainwol, Chairman & CEO, RIAA at NARM and it did not mention MediaMax. One of his slides in relation to CD Copy Protection was -
Copy Protected CDs
- Includes copy protection, secure burning capability
- Capable for use with both Windows media and
iTunes
- Proven in Europe past two years, significant US
rollout 2005 (Sony BMG)
- Technology evolving to address consumer
expectations
"Proven in Europe past two years" is more of an endorsement of Macrovision than of us.
Just THIS MONTH Universal included themselves on the MediaMax protected NARM CD
Haven't we already established that the CD was not protected for general release. So why are you assuming that Universal being included on that CD was because a limited number of the CDs might have had MediaMax protection on them? Can you produce one statment from Universal that shows they see Mediamax as a solution to their piracy problem. Like the post you are responding to, there are many articles where Universal state that they do not believe any technology yet fits the bill.
Stingray
But stating the same thing by the same person on a daily basis is not needed and is redundant and applies to both positive and negatives if they are redundant!
I haven't seen anyone complain about this issue (other than those that don't want to hear opinions contra to their own). Why not just let it pass. The redundacy doesn't detract from the board, but removal of such posts will be a much bigger negative because it will appear as censorship.
It already worries me when I see so many deleted posts and wonder what was written. I hope it was because they violated TOS and not because someone didn't like the message. Expanding the grounds for deletion doesn't help IMO.
Stingray
Yesterday,I pointed out that redundant posts will no longer be tolerated. Please look at your posts before they show up here .If you have said it before it does not have to be said again, again and again!
It will be interesting to see if you apply that criteria to every other poster, both positive and negative. I would think that apart from recent anxiety regarding the August 15th deadline not having been met, almost every other post, positive and negative, is a rehash of what was said before.
This board is meant to inform. Are new readers not allowed to see current hot issues, or are they expected to read all past posts to see what is going on?
I enjoy reading the posts of howdy and corey, but I would think most of what they post (apart from links to new articles) are also repititious. Sahd hasn't said much new since his first few posts. Will you remove all their posts if they repeat on a past topic. I doubt if that will happen.
Although Stehinvestor has repeated many times that he doesn't believe the audit will ever be done, each repitition gains in importance each time a deadline is missed, as it adds more credibility to his opinions. Likewise, each time the company reports and the reports show revenue reported by MediaMax Technology to be always around 2.5 cents, will posts that draw attention to that be deleted, because it was all said before.
As a board reader I like to see all opinions. I have no objections to posts that make malicious personal attacks on other posters being removed (although valid criticisms are in order) or posts that are part of an organized campaign to influence the share price being removed, but if redundancy becomes a reason for removal, then if more than a couple of posts appear on this board each day, then I would hold that the redundancy rule is not been impartially applied.
zstevek
If you are a member of the "they've-fed-us-a-line-of-bull-in-the-past-and-it-seems-to-be-continuing", you haven't used a MediaMax V5 disc yet IMO.
Of course you are correct that the quality of V5 is important. But more important is what we are getting for our technology. Are we getting 1 cent per CD, 2.5 cents or 4 cents.
We are told 4 cents, but all calculations point to 2.5 cents at best (assuming MediaMax revenue is 40% of total) or at worst 1 cent per CD (which the wording of the agreement would suggest is the case).
This is an investment not a competition on what techology is best. They are inter-related, but should our customers deem our technoogy to be worth 1 cents to them and not 4 cents, then that has huge implications on the worth of our investment.
145M CDs this year at 1 cent is $1.45M, at 2.5 cents is $3.625M or at 4 cents is $5.8M. The quarterly filing said we need about $5M to survive. Based on selling 145M CDs, our average take is crucial, with 2 of these figures being below the survival threshold (unless other revenue sources - meaning more dilution - are found).
There are many businesses that have have excellent technology but have failed for financial reasons. As an investor, I want to be sure that SCMI/MMXT is not one of those.
Mario #2
approximate total revenues from mmxt contracts: mmxt=85k,scmi=130k, scmi additional revenue= 30k to 50k(scmi, non-reporting). Units pressed in quarter: appx. 7 million @ appx. .035 avg.
It is interesting that you didn't use year to date figures, which we know would show revenue at 2.5 cents per CD (assuming MediaMax reports 40% of the revenue).
But lets continue with your assumption. If 7M were pressed 2nd quarter, then 3M were pressed 1st quarter. MediaMax Tech revenue for 1st quarter was $13,786, which assuming represents just 40% of combined revenue means combined revenue was $34,465. That would mean the average take for 1st quarter was just 1.1 cent per CD.
The 4 cent figure looks very much pie in the sky.
Going back to the $50K additional solo revenue that you claim SunnComm earns. Although I can accept that they may earn additional revenue from non-product licensing (consultancy, management fees etc.), there is no room in the agreement for SunnComm to earn solo revenue for licensing fees.
Read the words of the agreement carefully. Exclusive means exclusive. Furthermore, as I posted in my last post, it is also quite clear from this statement in the quarterly filing....
The Agreement provides the Company with 40% of the revenues derived from all existing licensing agreements held by SunnComm and future revenue generating agreements for the technology.
Any additional revenue SunnComm may have is not from licensing agreements, so do not get added to revenue when estimating revenue per CD.
The best we can come up with for this year (assuming 40% is what is reported) is 2.5 cents per CD.
Mario,
scmi has solo mostly pre-mmxt contracts that bring additional revenues.
So you are saying this statement in the quarterly filing is not true?
The Agreement provides the Company with 40% of the revenues derived from all existing licensing agreements held by SunnComm and future revenue generating agreements for the technology.
There is no room for "solo" in that statement just as the use of the word "exclusive" in the actual agreement also precludes SunnComm from earning revenue from the sale of SunnComm products that are not shared with MediaMax Tech.
Corey, re Clarification
Peter has already said on asktheprez that the reported revenue represents just 40% of the total. The problem that I have is that on two occasions prior to that statement, our club researcher contacted IR and was told the opposite - that Mediamax reported revenue is total revenue and 60% of that goes to SunnComm as a royalty.
What Peter stated on asktheprez is at odds with the agreement as filed with the SEC (the actual agreement I linked to earlier, not the summarized statements from the quarterly filings). It is also at odds with what our club was told.
This issue was discussed on RB some months ago and I kept a link to a post of tj that confirmed my view.
I was at the meeting today. Some good information. BMG has committed to using MediaMax on ALL US releases by Oct 1, 2004. They will be using the technology on ALL world wide releases by Jan 1, 2005. The revenue will come into QTIG who will then pay the royalty to Sunn. This arrangement will allow us to see the revenue in QTIG's reporting. There is more(the BMG news is the highlight), but I don't ave time to post right now. Fire away with questions and I will post more in the next few days as I have more time.
tj
http://www.ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SCMI&read=3822
That is exactly what our club was told and is in conformance with the wording of the actual agreement.