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.
A few comas and full stops would really help understand your post.
Didn't someone say last week that the number of employees was now 3 at SCMI. This is down from about 25+ a few years ago. This rings hollow then....
The people employed at SCMI and MMXT are a determined, clear-headed bunch, no absconding or distancing there!
Greg
And don't forget the poison pill Peter has put into an agreement, where he effectively gives himself a present of $1M 2 years after the merger.
The reason I used the term "implied" rather than "said" in relation to how you expected equality to be achieved is that I simply couldn't be bothered tracking through your hundreds of posts to find those that specifically quote you stating that SCMI would rise to meet MMXT. I know there are many there but I have better things to do than waste my time trying to prove to you what you already know.
You can peruse your dictionary as much as you like. Some may be impressed. Not me.
Alj
and the company, rather, has its array of 'live wires', in terms of initiatives, daily activity, great inventions that have already been turned into products, and ongoing talks, such as those that aim to move from possessing products to winning contracts.
To quote from one of your recent posts....
It's interesting to me that you cite absolutely no concrete evidence for the above.
Alj
On several ocasions I said here on this board that I saw the MMXT/SCMI price differential as having been overdone, and on that specific point events have borne me out
I don't think so. I have read all your posts. Although you did suggest that the differential was overdone and would over time be eliminated, the tone of those posts strongly implied that this would be effected by the price of SCMI rising to meet that of MMXT.
Both share prices heading to equality at zero hardly vindicates the opinions you expressed. Also, percentage wise, the differential is still quite large.
Corey,
In your opinion, can you please explain what happened to the financing deal MMXT supposedly had fall through?
Remember when Mario and a few others here said that they had received part of that funding and were just waiting on the rest. Did you ever wonder why the "part of the funding" never appeared in MMXT's filed accounts (the last few quarters) which would have been the case if it had been part received.
True. But we can only assess "what is" by looking at history and the picture isn't pretty. It shows a management that is untrustworthy (does not do what it says it will do), incompetent (has difficulty achieving even the smallest goals) and unaccountable (blames everyone/everything else for its woes).
With the knowledge of history we can easily answer Gregg's question: "are these the same ones that are going to pull us out?
Flydoc. 7 Months??? How about close to 5 years.
PHOENIX--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 8, 2002
SunnComm Inc. (OTC: SUNX) and Fan Energy Inc. (OTC BB: FNEY) jointly announced Wednesday that they have reached an agreement whereby SunnComm will merge with Fan Energy.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1643706_ITM
Those on MMXT seem to be bottom players. Look at their profiles and the other posts they have made. They seem to follow stocks that have reached rock bottom and make their play from there. Could be a good strategy if you know what you are doing. Its hard to tell if once they pick a bottom stock to invest in they then pump it to achieve their aims or if they are just playing the odds of one in every so many quadrupling. They spread the word on other boards about the stocks they have zoned in on.
Pennytrader has posted a lot about MMXT on several boards over the last few days, but all of it is just tehnicals on price activity. He hasn't even mentioned what the company does.
mystocks. There was also Koch records and I think some Karaoke crowd. I think the backlash was too strong for any label to go it alone, particularly the smaller ones. Just as the smaller labels waited for Sony/BMG to use DRM before they committed, they also would have backed out as soon as they saw Sony/BMG drop DRM. It doesn't imply they had issues with MediaMax, just that they could not afford to be trailblazers in such a negative environment as existed end 2005 early 2006.
Bleuduece,
You seem to have misunderstood my post. I didn't say I had an issue with particular posts being removed. I simply asked you if you PMd other people after you deleted their posts to allow them the opportunity to repost.
Bleuduece
Vulgarity ie; potty mouth and he was offered to repost a cleaned up version.
Just curious. How did you convey that offer to Mario?
"Somebody who claims to be connected to the co"
Are you saying that he is not their IR representative?
"comes by and posts some ambiguos crap"
I didn't notice anything ambiguous. He was quite explicit in saying that he had received information that he could not reveal to anyone else. He was also explicit in saying: "for the first time in a long time, I like what I see!"
So has he been lying to investors for the last few months when he said everything was bonza?
You mean their IR representative lies to investors on this board and the company does nothing about it. And you think that's funny?
Bleuduece,
It is SunnComm (or Mediamax) that has broken Regulation FD. They disclosed the information to Mario without making it public. Its in your own quote:
Fair Disclosure, Regulation FD
On August 15, 2000, the SEC adopted Regulation FD to address the selective disclosure of information by publicly traded companies and other issuers. Regulation FD provides that when an issuer discloses material nonpublic information to certain individuals or entities—generally, securities market professionals, such as stock analysts, or holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information—the issuer must make public disclosure of that information. In this way, the new rule aims to promote the full and fair disclosure.
Mario, but I see its been removed.
Not true. He can be complicit in getting OTHERS to buy or sell based on inside information he has.
But the illegality I referred to is that he is RECEIVING information that is not available to all investors. Regulation FD 42, if I recall, covers that.
But he has acted on it. He has made a post intended to influence others to buy the stock based on insider information that he has obtained.
"I am not at liberty to articulate but I am pleased!"
You mean you are receiving insider information? You should know that is not legal.
"for the first time in a long time, I like what I see!"
That means you didn't like what you saw previously, yet you continued to tell investors that everything was going terrifically.
Music industry group fires back at Apple
Story Published: Feb 7, 2007 at 8:21 PM PST
By Associated PressLOS ANGELES (AP) - A recording industry group fired back Wednesday at Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, suggesting his company should open up its anti-piracy technology to its rivals instead of urging major record labels to strip copying restrictions from music sold online.
Mitch Bainwol, chairman and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, said the move would eliminate technology hurdles that now prevent fans from playing songs bought at Apple's iTunes Music Store on devices other than the company's iPod.
"We have no doubt that a technology company as sophisticated and smart as Apple could work with the music community to make that happen," Bainwol said in a prepared statement.
In an essay posted Tuesday on the Cupertino-based company's Web site, Jobs called on record labels to abandon their requirement for online music to be wrapped in Digital Rights Management, or DRM, technology, which is designed to limit unauthorized copying.
The major record labels - Universal Music Group, EMI Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group - control some 70 percent of the music market and have maintained that DRM safeguards are needed to stave off rampant piracy.
Jobs said eliminating such restrictions would open up the online music marketplace.
Songs purchased on iTunes are wrapped in Apple's proprietary version of DRM technology, known as "FairPlay." Songs purchased from rival online stores that carry different DRM technology cannot be played on iPods.
In his essay, Jobs said Apple is against licensing "FairPlay" as an alternative method for making iTunes accessible to all portable players, because making the technology widely available would make it easer for hackers to figure out how to bypass it.
Calls to Apple were not immediately returned Wednesday.
Several analysts suggested the record companies should follow Jobs' suggestion.
"Clearly, DRM is not working," said Ted Schadler, an analyst at Forrester Research. "It sends a message to the customer that 'we don't trust you."'
Phil Leigh, senior analyst at Inside Digital Media, suggested that removing copy restraints would give the labels' music more exposure.
"Digital music has entered the mainstream," Leigh said. "The restrictions (the labels) require Apple and others to carry are preventing the market from developing to its full potential - it's retarding the growth."
Not everyone agreed that dumping DRM is the best strategy for the record labels.
"Eliminating online DRM appears to us to be an overly risky move that eliminates the potential for a future digital-only distribution model free of piracy," Deutsche Bank analyst Doug Mitchelson wrote in a research note.
Jobs could have just as easily lectured the software industry, which includes Apple, for its unwillingness to pursue an industrywide DRM standard or work to make media players recognize and not play pirated songs, Mitchelson wrote.
Copy protection is necessary to make other digital music sales models work, such as an all-you-want music subscription offered by Napster and the limited song-sharing features of Microsoft Corp.'s Zune player.
"All these music services wouldn't work without DRM," said David Card, music and media analyst for Jupiter Research. "(Music labels) are very nervous about distributing content that is unprotected. They think that everybody will share music, and there's evidence that a lot of people will."
Other analysts pointed to the success of eMusic, an online service that sells music in the MP3 format, which is free of anti-piracy restrictions.
The service, owned by New York-based Dimensional Associates Inc., offers downloads from a catalog of more than 2 million tracks by independent artists through a subscription plan.
Britain's EMI Music is experimenting with releasing music in the DRM-free MP3 format. In the past few months, the company has released tracks by Norah Jones, Lily Allen and the band Relient K.
"The feedback from fans (has) been very enthusiastic," EMI spokeswoman Jeanne Meyer said.
Leigh believes older music could be made available without copying restrictions.
"I think the labels will release selected back-catalog stuff, to see what happens," he said.
http://www.kcby.com/news/tech/5680131.html
That he meant facetious seems obvious to me.
Kmeister,
The question isn't whether they had a flier or not (that is even easier and cheaper to put together than a press release), but that if they were preparing something to handout to people at Midem they would have put on it where the product demonstrations were being held.
Neither Scott nor Mario knew where the demo was being held and the fact they had to defer to 101 Distribution to find out (who apparently were too busy at the time dealing with customers) suggests no one else in SunnComm or MediaMax knew either.
My opinion is the reason this information was not forthcoming during the event, was the fear that someone here might know some people attending Midem and could check it out. And there is a very good reason why they would not have wanted that to happen. LOL!
Yeh, that too. LOL
101 Distribion was there as a participant but not as an exhibionist. I don't know how they could promote DVCD other than handing out some feebies of the DVD at the door.
The fact that Scott and Mario were unable to say where 101 were presenting speaks volumes. With their pre-Midem discussions with 101, did not one person at the discussion have a floor layout of Midem or a brochure that they were going to hand out to prospective attendees. How could any potential customer know where to see the SunnComm product?
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I clearly stated:
MediaMax V5 which was shipped on later CDs did have potential security issues and a software patch was released to address them.
Mystocks
Sony didn't recall MediaMax CDs, but issued a patch to remove it.An earlier version of MediaMax offered copy protection but didn't create security risks nor monitored user activity.
The earlier version that didn't have potential security issues was MediaMax V3. MediaMax V5 which was shipped on later CDs did have potential security issues and a software patch was released to address them.
Although problems can be expected in all software, it is the continued denial by Peter that there were issues with MediaMax and everything would be fine if it wasn't for XCP that makes me believe he is not the right person to run a company. The reason that we have had no revenue this past year is due to Mediamax, not XCP. You can see his inability to face reality reflected by some of the longs here, who continue to say that the only problem with the MediaMax CDs was with the EULA. Since the EULA was written by Sony/BMG (it was the same one used on the XCP CDs) that is the same as saying there was no problem with MediaMax itself, just in the "packaging" added by others.
Thanks,
That's the one. Its the same one I saw last year. They seem to still owe about $600K to BTEK.
It's the recent activity I was interested in. There was an application for a writ of garnishment. I'm not too much into the legal stuff yet, but one definition of this is:
Writ of Garnishment
A writ ordering a person who owes a judgment debtor money to pay the judgment creditor instead. When a party wins a judgment for money damages against another who is owed money by a third person (e.g., an employer or person obligated to the debtor pursuant to a promissory note or contract) the court can order the third person to pay the judgment creditor in satisfaction of the judgment. Writs of garnishment may be issued to banks holding cash in accounts of the judgment debtor or to employers of the judgment debtor. If the amount an employer owes is insufficient to satisfy the judgment, a continuing writ may be issued directing the employer to withdraw all but a set minimum sum from the employee&rss wages each pay period, paying the employee the minimum amount and paying the rest of the debtor’s wages to the judgment creditor until the judgment is satisfied.
Based on this and considering there are 2 banks listed as garnishee defendants:
Bank One N A Garnishee Defendant JAMES SHIVELY
Wells Fargo Bank N A Garnishee Defendant Pro Per
it would look like BTEK is trying to recover the $600K directly from the banks who hold SunnComm's assets.
I would imaging this is one very good reason no financing is forthcoming. Why would anyone front up with a million or two, knowing the company owes $600K as a result of a lawsuit and appear unable to pay. You would just end up paying SunnComm's judgement debt.
jrinphx
I think it was you who posted a link to a court case yesterday that seemed to suggest an attempt was being made to seize SunnComm's assets. I didn't have time to read it properly at the time and I can't find the post now.
Can you post the link again please.
Flydoc,
"...promised funding to MediaMax has been delayed due to administrative changes in SEC´s Rule 415 guidelines..."
It means that a promise of funding from some specific person or entity has been delayed due to some new administrative requirement in SEC Rule 415. What the administrative requirement is and why it cannot be complied with by that specific person or entity is not stated.
Since SEC rules are there to protect the investing public, one should ask why that particular person or entity simply does not comply with the requirement. Since no other company that I am aware of seems to have any problem obtaining funding due to the changes in SEC Rule 415, one must wonder what is so peculiar about that funder.
Also, we were led to believe that investors were queueing up to provide finance to the company. It is inconceivable that all of these investors have problems with the change.
Don't you think it would be headlines throughout the financial press if some SEC rule changes were causing a disruption in the flow of funds to companies that need investment, yet there hasn't been a beep.
"It does'nt matter DVDCD or Blue Ray they will all get cracked read attach."
I don't think the AACS hack has implications for MediaMax DVCD because MediaMax DVCD is more a distribution product (an alternative way to get the CD content to consumers for those that have a need to sell a DVD combined with a CD) with some extras related to further manipulation of that content. The only direct implication IMO would be some reluctance to release titles on HD-DVD or Blu-ray because of the hack and therefore a potential shrinkage of the already limited MediaMax DVCD market.
One thing I should have added to my earlier post is since MediaMax DVCD is not a new optical format, but just a combination of some MediaMax software and CD audio content residing on a DVD, it also is applicable to HD-DVD and Blu-ray disks. MediaMax DVCD is just programs and data, not an optical format, so it can be run from the new DVD formats as well as the existing.
"Can some one explain the difference between MediaMax DVCD?"
Mystocks25, I'll give it a try.
The MediaMax DVCD is NOT a hybrid DVD / CD as some mistakingly have stated (I even thought that at first). It is NOT a new product of any kind, just an existing product combined with some software.
A MediaMax DVCD has also nothing to do with what is generally known in the industry as a DVCD, a double video CD, which you referenced in your post. If you search google on DVCD you will get over 522,000 hits, but if you add Mediamax to your search, you only get 604 hits. As to why they chose an existing name for their product is anybody's guess.
A Mediamax DVCD is not a new optical format. It is a DVD pure and simple, with some MediaMax code residing on the DVD and some audio data. At the physical level it is indistinguishable from any other DVD, because it is just a DVD. Remember DVD is proprietary, so you cannot go tinkering with the format.
What they have done is stored enhanced audio CD content on the DVD and put some MediaMax programs on the DVD to enable that audio to be manipulated on a computer. But that is just data and data is data, so putting data on a DVD doesn't in anyway make it a new type of optical disk.
If you put the DVD in a DVD player (non PC based) it will play whatever content it can recognise. If it is video content, it will play the videos. Because a non-PC based DVD player cannot run programs, it cannot run the MediaMax programs nor play the enhanced CD audio content.
If you put it in a CD player (PC or non PC based) it will do nothing, as it is a DVD, not a CD.
If you put it in a PC based DVD player, then you can run the MediaMax software (just like MediaMax CDs would run MediaMax software when placed in a PC). The resident MediaMax software provides all the other goodies, like burning a CD and storing the CD content from the DVD on it, downloading the audio to a PC for subsequent distribution to a portable device, creating skins, MusicMail etc.
The market would seem to be those who release video content on a DVD and also provide an audio CD that is in someway associated with the video content (a movie's soundtrack for example). I'll leave you to judge the size of that market.
This is taken from the marketing material:
For the industry, this platform is equivalent to including an additional physical CD in the DVD package without the associated expense.
That statement is only partially true, particularly from the customer perspective. When an additional physical CD is included, the user can play that CD in a CD player, but with a MediaMax DVCD, the user is required to cut their own CD using the MediaMax software on the DVD. Obviously if one doesn't have a PC with CD burner, that is not quite the same as being provided with the CD. So using the word "equivalent" is not correct, but that doesn't mean that those who produce such content won't be interested. On the otherhand, if they want to reduce costs and are willing to make the user do some work to access the audio content, then they could just as easily make the audio material available on the website (with perhaps a key to access is on the DVD) or just simply include the audio content on the DVD as MP3 or WM files and let the users get the content from there.
Alj,
I didn't mean to address the question directly to you, although it was probably in reply to a post of yours. It really was for anyone who knew the answer, specifically people who may have been in discussion with SunnComm/MediaMax or IR.
With the help of Mario, who has just specifically checked out the real situation with Scott, the true answer to your question is that those who are presenting the company's products at the Midem are in the middle of doing just that.
So let's look at this. The company has currently no revenue, but is in the process of releasing through 101 Distribution their first marketable product in years. I would expect much of the companies future expectations are resting on the success of the product. Yet neither the company president (of MediaMax), Scott, nor its IR representative Mario, know which stand it is launched from at Midem. Unbelievable!
So when all the potential customers (and we are told there was huge interest) called SunnComm or MediaMax over the last few weeks and said they would be at Midem and would like to check out their product, they couldn't even tell them which stand to go to. Don't you think it would be worth having something on the website that tells potential customers where to go? Even the 101 Distribution PR failed to say where they intended to present the product.
This all sounds very odd to me. I mean they do want to sell the product or is this all another fluff PR situation?
At what stand at Midem are they launching? Don't see them on any program.
I expected you not to even attempt to refute one substantive fact. As I said, we thoroughly investigated all the allegations in the article and found them to be accurate.
Can I ask Mario and/or ALJ to step up to the podium and show how the substantive allegations (which most are) in the article are incorrect? This should be such an easy task as you always claim to do excellent DD.
In fact, is there one person on this board that can point out, with substantiation, the errors in the article? Not in the opinions, which are arguable, but to the facts presented?
Screamineagle
It also includes several opinions stated as fact, states one side of posts made on message boards without reference to the differing posts made on the same boards, and in some cases outright falsehoods. There are some facts included, basically just enough to keep some folks interested.
I agree that the article has some opinions stated as facts, but these only relate to the writers opinion on the motivation behind the proposed merger. Obviously that could only be an opinion and I think the reader would be able to assess that as opinion only.
However, that article came to the attention of our group after we bought into MMXT and we researched the article thoroughly and concluded that it is almost 100%, if not 100%, correct in relation to the historical facts stated. We couldn't verify some statements made in relation to Raging Bull posts as a large chunk of that board was deleted. But I would be very hard pushed to agree with your assessment on the article. I am refering specifically to the "Rose by any name" section, not the preamble on DRM, which I disagree with.
Would you be so kind as to address the substantive claims made in the article and show us where they are wrong and the evidence you have to prove them wrong. One of the issues I have is that much of the evidence used by the writer to support her claims is taken from SunnComm's own press releases and SEC filings. The math regarding % ownership of the technology seems OK to me. Their statements on Will-Shown can only be disproved by showing independent evidence to the contrary, which should be easy to do if the company is of the size and prestige stated in the PR.
Flydoc,
We own MMXT, but will be selling in the near future based on what we have been told and our own research.
We will still maintain an interest in MMXT as there are some legal avenues yet to be explored.
I personally shall continue to post infrequently on the board as I have done up to now and will express my opinion as I see fit, within the board rules. It is quite clear that some would prefer me to move on. I wonder why?
Flydoc,
Get real. We are not talking about positive predictions, but outright lies made by management of this company. Mario, or other execs stating that certain events will happen withing 1 or 2 months and they not happening after 10 or 20 months are not predictions gone wrong, but lies. One or two missed deadlines could be accepted, but 99%? Come on.
Our investment group have had consultations within the last week with some industry analysts, and they have let us know beyond any shadow of doubt that there is no one in the music or movie industry that have any interest or are even aware of products that SunnComm/MediaMax are supposed to be offering. They, in fact, found the product list on the website laughable when we discussed it with them. They gave us many reasons why each product was not commercially viable, and said we must be joking when we said that the company claimed there was huge interest in the industry.
One example that I recollect was musicmail and the spiel given by Inmod. They simply pointed out that there was nothing stopping the user just ripping the tracks on the CD and just sending them as an email to their friends, as there is no protection of the CD content anyway. For the life of me, I cannot see any holes in what they said. Can you give me a reason why Musicmail would be a product that the labels would be interested in, when users can do the same thing without restrictions of any sort by just ripping the CD tracks?
up to this point in time, prior positive predictions have usually not come true, while most of the negative ones have come true. That does not necessarily mean that that trend will continue into the new year
I agree, if it were you making predictions and some other non-company person making predictions. But when the predictions come from the company and have timeframes within a period of a few months and are missed by years, then at some stage one has to conclude that it is mushroom food, not predictions we are being fed.
I find it very curious that the merger question was not specifically answered. Many times in the past, the merger was touted as the highest priority of the company. Yet, when the question "Is the Merger still in the plans?" is asked, it is not answered, except for a fuzzy "and the combination of SunnComm and MediaMax" which could mean anything.
There is also the continued denial that SunnComm is responsible for its own problems, trying to lay the blame on F4I. "Yes, we know that, all in all, 2006 has been a pretty miserable year for our company due, in large part, to the Sony root kit debacle - a copy protection product gone awry from First4Internet in England."
If they are unwilling to recognize their own inadequacies, then they will never overcome them.
I hope Peter understands this simple fact.... MediaMax was not abandoned by BMG becuase of problems with XCP. It was abandoned because of problems with MediaMax. To name a few: installing even when declined by user, not uninstalling cleanly, opening up the system to potential security exposures.
Some of the products in our current lineup have been around for more than a year. The DVD/CD combo and MusicMail to name a few. Yet we have had no sales of these this year either, even though we have been told that there is huge interest. MusicMail is on the portfoliio of InMod and they haven't sold any either. Lack of sales of these products have nothing to do with XCP, or internal financing for that matter
Masha,
Why? Do you think it inconceivable that this stock is being pumped from time to time by certain people?
My experience to date is that on a regular basis there is pumping of this stock followed by the inevitable dump. I have my suspicions on who is doing it and who on this board are helping the pumping along.
Take a look at Mario's background. Why does almost nothing he say ever eventuate? Are what Peter and the others say any different?
I'm not so childish and naive to accept the explanation that timelines are only estimate and it is just a matter of time before it all falls together. I don't believe what we are being told is down to management incompetence and unlike almost every other company in the planet, they can never meet any deadline. I believe that they are being intentionally dishonest in their statements to shareholders. Whether that is to enable them to keep the company alive so that it might eventually succeed, or to just keep it alive so that they maintain their nice salaried positions, I'm not sure, but in either case those dishonest statements are pumping.