DocAndersen
One of the things that makes me sad is the reality of computer consulting companies. I worked for a company that didn’t pay for the software they were using. They were reporting financial numbers that were at best lies, at worst outright theft. We aren’t talking 30 to 40 thousand dollars. We are talking more than a million dollars a year. For a company that was making 300,000 years in profit. You do the math.
Legal software is critical. Not having legal software makes any company suspect. Both from the management perspective but also that anything they build and deliver could have touched the illegally used software and therefore is tainted.
It costs more money to be legal. But it is the only way you can be.
It reminds me of the music industry and their quest to get people with illegal music. The rise of online music services and the quality of SiriusXM radio makes that less relevant now than it was. The other side of the copyright and legal issue is, however, who makes money. I understand the concept of risk versus exposure. Risk and exposure are what a company takes. They take the risk of hiring you, and the exposure of contracts with their customers. Therefore, the company should make money on your time spent on their behalf. That is completely fair. They shouldn’t however, make money in a manner that isn’t legal.
What I’ve seen against the music industry is where the money is being made. Where a massively selling album may generate one hundred million in overall sales, the artist gets roughly 10% of that. Frankly, it isn’t fair. The risk for the performer is great, the company releasing the record and mp3’s on iTunes makes 90%. That is the wrong ratio. Hopefully, someone is working on a model going forward that better supports the creative entity in the music profession.
My apologies, I have random weekend thoughts in the technology space.
cool.
ok