gapwedge2001

Though Bill confirmed the CSN numbers, was there any clarification on the 4 - 6 cents per CD. Some recent posts (MusicMan was one) give me the impression that CSN will not be paying the 4 - 6 cents, but other corporate sponsors.

Do we know if they (the sponsors) have agreed to that, or is it just a hope at this stage.

They don't report the "fundamentals", so it can only be speculation.

stehisit or stehsucker

I think one of you posted some time back that you heard EMI were going MVSN. Is that who this guy on yahoo is talking about? Who might the other be? Universal? Is this just MVSN BS or for real?

According to the CC, two major labels are planning to use CDS300 this year for worldwide release, including the US.

One major has been preparing for rollout and is just about set to go. Only some minor contractual issues remain to be finalized. Macrovision expects CDS300 to be included on a "very large percentage" of releases from this major. Other label is expected to sign later this year.

Also 2 major labels are looking to Hawkeye for P2P protection. One has finished its testing and the other just begun. Macrovision expects to sign at least one if not both as Hawkeye customers eventually.

Studios also using Hawkeye. RipGuard is gaining traction according to plan.

They expect Hawkeye, RipGuard and CDS300 to increasingly add to revenues as the year progresses. Q3 onwards will be the key.

Interestingly the software division now represents 50% of the business (52% in Q1). They expect that both sides will grow at the same pace from here on, maintaining a roughly 50/50 split. New business drivers for the entertainment division are Hawkeye, RipGuard and CDS, with some new content delivery options in 06.

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7082865&tid=mvsn&sid=708...

"does it make any sense that they are issuing more scmi shares, only to have to cover them with more mmxt shares with the merger?"

I'm not sure it matters from that point of view. Excluding the sp difference, which I agree makes more sense to issue MMXT, otherwise there is no difference to issue MMXT or SCMI now.

If there are 450M SCMI now and 180M MMXT, then there will be 630M MMXT post merger.

If they issue 90M more SCMI, there will be 720M MMXT post merger. If they issue 90M more MMXT instead, there will also be only (did I say only?) 720M MMXT post merger. So from that point of view, there is no difference.

I meant there should be no need to raise the authorized to fund a war chest, which is what you were talking about. I agree, if the merger goes ahead, they will need to have the ability to issue sufficient shares to meet the 1:1 ratio or whatever they decide on.

MMXT's authorized is already 350M so there should be no reason to raise it. They also have authorization to issue 50M preference shares in MMXT

I would think what is happening today is that those investors who bought in the last few months for the expected pop before the SHM are now bailing out. In a day or two they will be gone and the price will bounce back.

Risk/Reward.

I am always wary of penny stocks. That doesn't mean I won't invest in them and that doesn't mean I won't express my opinion on what I might be wary of.

I just notice that there seem to be a few people here who always seem to know things in advance of everyone else. I just would love to become a member of that club. Wouldn't you?

"Collin is just speculating like everyone else!!!"

How do you know he is speculating? He seems to have information that others don't have. Remember Ford?

I'd love to be one of those that are informed in advance that major news is going to be released. How do we get into that club?

If there is any announcement of substance why be "wary" of it. Analyze it,......

That was my point. By the time we analyze it, we may find that it is just fluff and there just to smooth passage for management at the SHM.

It has been an up and down market almost daily for the past month. One has no way of knowing whether the days around the SHM will be up or down in advance, so holding off the announcement until just before the SHM cannot be because they don't want to waste it on a down market.

IMO, any announcement today should be viewed with suspicion, moreso since you have already declared today "news day". How do you know this?

I would be wary of a major announcement to coincide with the SHM. It would suggest that they are trying to make a smooth passage for themselves at the meeting and IMO would mean that the announcement may not be what it seems to be. By the time that people have disected the announcement and separated the meat from the fat, the meeting will be truly over and management off the hook for a while.

Any major announcement, assuming the "deal" is already done, should have been released at least a week before the meeting. That would have allowed us to analyse it and follow up with intelligent questions at the meeting.

All I can say is to be wary of any announcement that comes tomorrow or Friday.

sahd3g

There is much more than that.

Peter was seen parked behind a Ford pick-up recently and if you look at Bill's family name you will see the letters EMI hidden within it. What's more, Eric's initials are EV which are the beginning of Eve. Guess what Eve ate in the Garden of Eden?

These are not just coincidences IMO.

Ta, that worked

Viralg anti-p2p: Part III


AfterDawn
p2pnet.net News:- AfterDawn has, naturally enough, been following the Viralg farce.


That’s where Viralg swears it has a cast-iron, carved in rock, solid gold way for the entertainment industry to stop people from sharing files.


A lot of people think it's a scam. But why not?

Just because DRM is a crock doesn’t stop ‘entrepreneurs’ of all ilks from using it to milk the technically (and morally and ethically) challenged people who run the movie and record label cartels.


“This is Dela here from AfterDawn.com just sending you on a news tip since we get quite a lot from your site,” he says in an email on, “well a Finnish news source says BMG Finland and Viralg may be investigated because the method Viralg uses may be illegal (basically destroying communications)”.


Why are we not surprised?


Here’s the AfterDawn post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Viralg and BMG to be investigated?
By Ketola - AfterDawn

A request for investigation has been filed against Viralg and BMG Finland by a Finnish musician. The musician, Pekka Sallinen has asked both the police department of Helsinki as well as the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate whether the use of technology developed by Viralg and used by BMG Finland is illegal.


Specifically Mr Sallinen asks the police to investigate whether or not the companies are in violation of the Finnish criminal law which strictly prohibits any kinds of interference with telecommunications. Viralg manufactures and markets a product which, according to them, breaks P2P downloads by injecting "bad data" to people downloading copyrighted material. According to Viralg, BMG Finland has been successfully using their technology since 2003.


Even though Viralg's technique of faking file hashes works only with some of the old peer-to-peer applications, such as Kazaa, it is nevertheless illegal to take matters into one's own hands when fighting against copyright infringements. Furthermore, downloading or copying music and video files for personal use via P2P networks (or any other means) is still perfectly legal in Finland. In his request for investigation Mr Sallinen reminds the investigators that action should be taken before companies take up a habit in defending their rights by illegal means.


Request for investigation by Pekka Sallinen (in Finnish)

http://p2pnet.net/story/4627

Viralg anti-p2p: Part II

p2pnet.net News:- Yesterday, we reported that Finland’s Viralg “guarantees” to stop file sharing in its tracks.


At the time, we were going on what we saw on the site but Benedek Toth told us about Viralg's press release. You can read it here, should you so desire. But the headline says it all:

VIRALG: End of illegal peer to peer file sharing

Toth isn’t impressed.

Neither is Ed Felten.


"The finnish company Viralg claiming that their new method against p2p networks is able to fake or manipulate data in p2p networks, even if the users are using a verification site," says Toth in findhash.com, going on, "In their press release they are naming findhash.com as an example.

"Findhash is one of the oldests of its kind, and gained the title 'trusted' by many of our users, simply because we'd never use or recommend any technology, method or software which can be corrupted by a third party.


"Most client uses at least one, but usually two different checksum to verify the downloaded data. These methods are developed by real professional organisations (such NSA, Berkeley etc) and often used in other secure transfers, such as your communication with your bank.


"The use of two different algorithm, a secure and a tree-based can provide a very good corruption-handling to the filesharing client, so even if they trying to alter the data, you only have to redownload a smaller part of the file. Most of them do this for you automatically.


“No matter what they claim to be able to do or try to do, the laws of mathematics cannot be changed by them. And these laws tells us that, even using the whole computing capacity of mankind, they'd need millions of years to fake the hash of one movie file.”


'It's not the hashes ...'
Felten took the trouble to examine the Viralg site in some detail, and here’s what he has to say in Freedom to Tinker


“This shows all the signs of being a scam or hoax. The company's website offers virtually nothing beyond claims to be able to totally eradicate file swapping of targeted files. The ‘Company’ page has no information about the company or who works for it. The ‘Customers’ page does not mention any specific customers. The ‘Testimonials’ page has no actual testimonials from customers or anybody else. The ‘Services’ page refers to independent testing but gives no information about who did the testing or what specifically they found. The ‘Contacts’ page lists only an email address. There is no description of the company's technology, except to say that it is a "virtual algorithm", whatever that means. Neither the website nor the Viralg press release nor any of the press coverage mentions the name of any person affiliated with Viralg. The press release uses nonsense technobabble like ‘super randomized corruption’.


“The only real technical information available is in a patent application from Viralg, which describes standard, well-known methods for spoofing content in Kazaa and other filesharing networks. If this is the Viralg technology, it certainly doesn't provide what the website and press release claim.


“My strong suspicion is that the headline on the Slashdot story – ‘Finnish Firm Claims Fake P2P Hash Technology’ -- is correct. But it's not the hashes that look fake, it's the technology.”

http://p2pnet.net/story/4582

'Guaranteed' anti-file sharing

p2pnet.net News:- A company in Finland says it's come up with a virtual algorithm “guaranteed” to block p2p file sharing.

Viralg says its turnkey p2p blocker can, “wipe out even the most professional swappers”.

Professional swapper? Never heard of the beast.

Anyway, all you need is Viralg, of course, and a “partner who knows what it is doing” and one such is, says the company, is BMG Finland.

BMG hasn’t had a lot of luck with its current DRM supplier, SunnComm-that-was, and it could be its German parent is looking for other options.

In the meanwhile, note that Viralg is only promising to block online file sharing which is not, of course, the real problem.

That lies with the pro criminal counterfeiters and duplicators who use physical CDs and DVDs, not file sharing, to wreak havoc with the entertainment industry.

http://p2pnet.net/story/4572

I would think that the writer is wrong on that. Viralg looks to be for protecting against peer to peer piracy which MediaMax doesn't do. If BMG were to use Viralg, they would still need to protect the actual CDs, so this would be complementary, not competitive.

Moderator, can't you just post a link to their website rather than that huge intro above. It takes ages to scroll down just to see if there is a new post. Make the intro short enough so that we can see the most recent posts also on the screen without having to scroll.

Do you think the sharp ramp up in CDs on the list might have something to so with the shareholder meetings? Didn't they issue some fluff PRs before the last 2 meetings to smooth things over for the meetings. Couldn't this be an attemp to do the same for next week?

Its easy to add names to a list.

"We've protected 11 more CD's this week"

To be honest, all we know is that they added 11 more CDs to the list this week. They may be pre-releases only, normal releases or they may not even be protected at all.

With all the misinformation coming from management, I am beginning to suspect that the CD list is just another tool to keep people buying the stock.

Peter Jacobs statement in the newsletter about Stern was downright deceitful. Why should we trust the CD list when we cannot trust him to be honest in his statements to us.

I will believe that we are protecting new CDs when we see them in the stores with the Mediamax sticker. Until then, I am very sceptical.

"If I would have purchased QTIG back then instead of SCMI (Which I wanted to do but was told by SCMI this would not be in my best interest) I would be sitting much better. But I purchased SCMI at twice the price of QTIG per SCMI telling me this was the best thing to do for me as an investor."

If you remember who told you that, why not call him/her and ask for an explanation.

MMXT nearly double SCMI now.

Assuming the MMXT sp is not being manipulated, I see this as a perception that either merger will not proceed or that the terms will be closer to 2:1.

The trouble is, who could deduce either of those possibilities from the information available publicly

I agree that Stern will not endorse SCMI/MMXT (as in suggesting listeners buy the stock), particularly if he is a shareholder himself. It could backfire, as it may come across as pumping. It also carries the risk that he could be sued if the shares don't perform and investors lose.

The best thing would be for him to say how he loves the MediaMax product and acknowledge at the end that he is a shareholder in the company that developed it, as a matter of public disclosure. The listeners can take it from there if they want to invest in us.

If he features a particular CD, then the listeners may even go out and buy it just to see what he is talking about.

"By that I mean different attempts were made and actions taken only to find that enforcement by regulators was absent."

Lack of regulatory action does not explain why there was no outcry from those who missed out when the first dividend was issued.

The only sensible answer is there is no short position of any significance.

alj - Counterfeiting shares?

If they have been able to hold these short positions, without any bother to them for months, in some cases for years (IMO, with many selling between 30 and 20 cents), what on earth would have stopped their titanium will from gleefully counterfeiting an equivalent number of counterfeit shares? It must have been just a logical consequence, with everything perfectly in line. Financially speaking, these are serial killers.

It is not the missing SCMI shares that are key, it is how come those who bought the shares that were naked shorted were not up in arms when the first dividend was distributed. Some are suggesting that the naked short position is between 200M and 400M shares. The "officially" issued SCMI at the time of the distribution was about 430M shares and their holders were entitled to 24M QTIG shares. So the shareholders of the "extra" 200M to 400M SCMI shares should have been entitled to about 11M to 22M QTIG shares.

These obviously werent't distributed, yet no one was complaining about not having received their entitlement in the first distribution.

Are you also saying they also counterfeited QTIG dividends and organized their own distribution of these? This certainly is huge news and worthy of front page on the WSJ.

One thing more.....

If revenues are $400K+ per quarter and the burn rate is $200K per quarter, why did they need to issue somewhere north of 150M shares last year?

Why would they need authorization to issue another 90M shares?

alj, replies to your reply

You seem to be scoffing at the whole problem of naked shorting

Actually I'm not. Naked shorting does exist, but in the case of SCMI, logic dictates that it could not be significant at this price and assuming the "natural" price of SCMI is much higher than it currently is ($0.30 or more say). I would accept that naked shorting of SCMI could be significant if SCMI is in reality worth just a couple of cents more. In that case the shorters can make as much money betting on the downside as longs on the upside. But a hard 2 cents versus and easy 22+ cents, no way.

Also, I see no one has offered an explanation as to why there was no outcry from many SCMI investors when the first QTIG dividend was distributed. If there were 200M - 400M shares of SCMI naked shorted, then there should have been a shortfall of 10M to 20M QTIG shares to meet those "assumed" to be entitled to the distribution. With no one seeming to have missed out on their entitlement would only suggest that there isn't a significant short position.

you seem to be claiming an oracular or infallible status for what you say.

I am not basing my claim on my opinion but on cofirmations by IR, twice by members of our investment group. I don't believe IR to be infallible and will make mistakes from time to time, but hardly on something as fundamental as this.

Those interested can make a mental note now that you are, in effect, saying that total revenues for SCMI in Q4 were, at most, 65 K, whereas my estimate is between 6 and 7 times that figure. From the moment of the merger on, the precise figures should become public, and longs will be able to assess which figure is nearer the truth.

That is not what I said precisely. I am saying that SCMI's revenue from MediaMax from March 4th (the effective date of the agreement) to December 31st was just about $64K and QTIG's the remaining $42K. However, I reckon they may have booked perhaps another $10K or so from MediaMax prior to agreement coming into effect, from my rough caluclations.

They may also have additional revenues that are in $450K to $500K per quarter, but I would bet that next to none of that is from outside the two companies. They receive $138K a month advance for future royalties and $12K per month for services rendered. That is $450K per quarter that they are probably booking as revenue, but that is just "funny" money, with Quiet Tiger creating an asset for advances paid and SunnComm booking this as revenue (with a corresponding liability I presume). In the merged company these would just cancel out and the only revenue will be the "real" revenue from external sources.

Since you claim to have researched this revenue, could you let us know what the source of this $400K+ per month is?

"Obviously, the SEC knew how many shares were out within a few million shares accuracy at worst."

No, the company had to file on the appropriate form what the issued shares were. Filing the appropriate form was one of the criteria to be on the list. SunnComm did not file that form.

It was stated that companies were on the list in error, not that they were correctly on the list and it was then decided to exclude some.

alj14

You admit that your view on the number of counterfeited shares is simply a conjecture

As is everybody's, but I gave a good explanation as to why the number couldn't be significant. You failed even to address the argument.

the approximate indications I have gathered point to quarterly revenues for SCMI alone of just over 420K

How would you be in a position to gather such information. It would be highly illegal for SunnComm to reveal such information to you and not to other investors. Since you are implying this is mainly advertising revenue, you would have to have confidential information on the deals they struck with the various advertisers.

You should remember (as often pointed out by Stingray) that SCMI receives advertising revenues to which MMXT does not have access.

Then Stingray is also wrong. Just read Quiet Tiger's submission to the SEC and it states in black and white that Quiet Tiger is entitled to 50% of the revenue (currently 40%) derived from MediaMax and all upgrades to the product. The PerfectPlacement module is part of MediaMax. You are not suggesting that Quiet Tiger shareholders have been misinformed through incorrect SEC filings?

The only revenue that SunnComm may have derived outside of MediaMax revenue since March 2004 is booking the shares received for entering the agreement as revenue. They may also be receiving some revenue from consulting.

IMO, you are also incorrectly interpreting the filed figure of 106K as applying to the two companies considered as a whole, rather than as the MMXT (ex-QTIG) share alone.

It may be your opinion, but I know different.

As to your surprising belief that markets and individual investors and/or shorts are normally "rational", so that "irrational" behaviour would be an exceedingly unlikely event (please correct me if I am misinterpreting your thoughts), I would comment that the fear and greed that inevitably tinge investment decisions are not exactly in the most rational quadrant.

So you are accepting my assertions regarding how difficult it would be for shorters to make money shorting at $0.07 and how comparatively easy it would be for them to make money going long at $0.07, but still assert that it would be more likely for them to take the first path. I am not asserting that some investors don't act irrationally. Some do and there are times when almost all do in panic situations. But there is no way that this situation could be sustained for such a long period when the math is so obvious. With the probability of making substantially more money weighted so heavily in favor of those who go long in the situation described, the effect of those few irrational enough to short under the circumstances would be completely negated by the mass of investors going long to take the easy pickings. The market as a whole is generally right. Simple logic dictates that there is no large short position.

remember that SCMI appeared on the SHO list several times before it was decided by the SEC not to include pink sheet stocks.

Wrong. SCMI should not have been included at all, because it doesn't provide information to the SEC on the number of issued shares. SCMI was included in error. Those companies on the lists were supposed to be those who had the number of shorted shares as a percentage of the issued shares above a given threshhold. Since they had no information on the number of SCMI shares issued, they couldn't calculate whether SCMI was above the threshhold or not. Read the criteria required to be on the list including the required filings and you will see that SCMI was included in error.

jrinphx, I'm with you on the "get shorty" issue. I have no idea what the short position is, but I cannot see how it could be a large position. Dadgummit posted that without shorting the sp should be at least $0.40. Let's take this as a reasonable figure.

So why would they be shorting at $0.07 with an absolute maximum upside gain of $0.07 and potentially unlimited downside loss. Anyone shorting at this price would have to be off their heads, considering any of the hinted major announcements could come at any time.

Alternatively, instead of shorting at $0.07, they could buy at $0.07. This would have limited downside and a smooth easy ride to $0.40, a gain of nearly 600%.

Although I have no figures to support my view that short interest is small, logic dictates that it is so.

SunnComm is earning revenue (though the amount may be in dispute), so there is no suggestion that we could fail, particularly with what we know is in the pipeline. Trying to drive the share price from the current low $0.07 to, at best, another couple of cents lower is a virtually impossible task. Yet to buy shares and take the easy ride to $0.40 is a certainty. So why are these people acting so irrationally?

My take is that the current sp of $0.07 is probably what we are worth. The market is valuing us as a company with 620M shares out (QTIG + SCMI) and revenues of just $106K. We know (or at least hope) that the $106K is just the beginnings of what will be explosive growth, but the market in general will not pay more until they see some proof of the growth appearing in audited statements

People want to know about deals. Compatibility statements could simple be put on our website for all to see.

Is this a valid use of scarce company resources? If that PR cost $1000 to issue, that is 1% of all our revenue for 2004. Are we going to put out a PR for each CD player it works on?

Also, that PR isn't stating that MediaMax works on those CD players. MediaMax only works on PC CD/DVD players. What it is saying is that MediaMax doesn't prevent the CD from playing on those car CD players. That is hardly an endorsement of anything. A CD without MediaMax will also play on those players.

But haven't we always had 100% playability?

My comment wasn't about you. Thank you for posting it. It was about the PR.

That is a big time fluff PR.

We are saying that our copy protected CDs works on CD players? Is that news?

"capital is raised on very favorable terms"

I don't think so! If the need for more capital is because we are expanding so rapidly, then this is the worst possible way to raise capital.

Each of us here think the share price could go north of $0.50 by year end and to dilute the company by issuing shares (which would have to be at a discount to market) at maybe 6 or 7 cents is nuts. 90M shares at 7 cents is $6.3M. If we are so close to making it big, then we should be borrowing at 5 or 6 per cent interest. If the share price does reach 50 cents by this time next year, then that is an equivalent borrowing rate of 1000%. Favorable terms indeed!

If we are growing at 8 times the previous rate then revenue is coming in 8 times previous rate. Adding a couple of employees should easily be taken care of by just doubling the rate.

"This is a SCMI proxy, which after SCMI merges with MMXT means nothing"

The only problem is, if SCMI needs to increase the authorized in the event of no merger, why wouldn't a merged company also need to do the same. SunnComm have 50% of the revenue and a huge monthly advance (and have sufficient voting power to increase the advance if needed) so if SCMI needs to still issue more shares to survive if there is no merger, then it goes without saying that the merged company would also be in a similar position.

This proxy reinforces my belief that the other $600K in revenue that SunnComm is supposed to have is nothing more than intercompany transfers (value of QTIG shares received as part of marketing agreement etc.). There is no "real" revenue (from outside sources) entering the group other than the $106K shown for Quiet Tiger.

Also having read the terms of the marketing agreemnt as outlines in the PR and SEC filings, SunnComm cannot receive revenue from CD sales from "other sources". The agreement is exclusive to Quiet Tiger and includes all contract that existed prior to the agreement.

Unfortunately that means that royalties are just about 1 cent per CD. If anyone can show me where SunnComm could obtain other revenue on CD sales since the agreement came into effect that doesn't contravene the terms of the agreement, I will be delighted to read and be proved wrong.

If SunnComm's revenues from other sources is over $600K as we were hinted at by some here last week and if we get a substantial advance from Quiet Tiger each month, then there is no reason they should be increasing the authorized. Isn't the burn rate just a few hundred $K?

dadgummut - So the condition is: MMXT is the Buyer and SCMI is the Seller.

You have got that all wrong. The conditions follow that paragraph (items a through d). That line - ("Buyer" is the registrant; "Seller" is SunnComm) - is just explaining who they mean by buyer and seller in the conditions that follow.

This is the full text:

On March 30, 2004 we entered into a non-binding letter of intent to merge with SunnComm International Inc. on a proposed 1 for 1 exchange ratio subject to certain conditions. The conditions included in the letter of intent are as follows ("Buyer" is the registrant; "Seller" is SunnComm):


a. the condition that the financial advisor of Buyer, The Robins Group,
LLC, shall have delivered to the Board of Directors of Buyer a report
which indicates to the satisfaction of Buyer's Board of Directors that
the Exchange Ratio is fair to Buyer and its stockholders from a
financial point of view; and

b. the condition that it must appear to both parties that the necessary
audits of Seller can be completed within the requisite period of time
to allow for timely and complete, required filings of Buyer to be made
with the SEC; and

c. the condition that the Seller shall have engaged Tim Gay & Associates,
P.C. to render, and such firm shall have commenced work on, an
independent Fairness Opinion on the Exchange Ratio and merger; and

d. the condition that the Seller shall not have declared a dividend or
otherwise distributed any of its registered common shares of the Buyer
to its shareholders as a partially liquidating dividend between the
date of execution of this Letter of Intent and the date of execution
of the Definitive Agreement

I think this is just an amendment to the original registration of the 96M shares last year to delay the effective date of that registration. They will in the future issue a new registration when they want to make it effective again.

The 96M (now less 24M) shares may possibly be used as part of the merger distribution, but they would still need 378M more to be able to give a 1:1 SCMI (450-72). However, it is not stated anywhere I can see that they will be put to that use, except that they will not be distributed as dividends as originally intended (going by jr's post).

This is the key to what this registration is about.

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.

Clear as mud

It seems conflicting statement are being made. Investor relations stated the opposite, that the 10K revenue was the total revenue from all sales through QTIG, not just Quiet Tigers's portion.

Mario's statement was: The scmi portion of the qtig revenues in the 10k is not the only portion that exist's.

That is talking about SCMI's portion of that revenue, again confirming what IR said.

I have seen posts and statements from SunnComm that stated because Quiet Tiger was fully reporting, revenue to SunnComm would be transparant. How can it be transparent if there are other undisclosed sources.

Perhaps you are talking of advance revenues paid by Quiet Tiger? That would hardly count, as that is owed to Quit Tiger and would have to be paid back presumably if actual sales don't meet expected. Advance revenues are just intercompany transactions and have no bearing on the real world.

cgibellino

If we win a deal with Ford Audio, could you let the rest of us mere humans know how we can get inside information ahead of everyone else, so we can trade with confidence ahead of everyone else.

I have since moved to a battery powered calculator and still find my figures on average take per CD still coming out at just over 1 cent. Mario has confirmed that Quiet Tiger's 10K showed combined revenue, not Quiet Tiger's share, and he also confirmed that the number of sold CDs have been made publicly available in press releases. Could you please enlighten us on the source of your figures that resulted in you declaring the average take to be 4 cents per CD and suggesting those who came up with a different result were using the wrong type of calculator.