On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:27:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 8/17/2022 7:05 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:56:48 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> On 8/17/2022 5:44 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They re-release and re-re release Gould because they
> >>>>> think they make a profit doing it. Certainly making a
> >>>>> profit enables other activities. There is no question.
> >>>>
> >>>> The real question is how those profits will be used.
> >>>> Will they be used (at least partially) in manners that
> >>>> benefit a broad music audience and that contribute
> >>>> to education and social welfare? Or will they be just
> >>>> just padding Sony's wallet even more?
> >>>>
> >>>> My cats would like to know. They are keen to find out
> >>>> what can they get out of this.
> >>>
> >>> In general firms behave in a way consistent with making
> >>> their stockholders as much money as possible. Any other
> >>> action will incur stockholder wrath. This does not mean
> >>> that firms don't engage in "socially ware" behavior, as
> >>> having a good reputation contributes to money making.
> >>
> >> Isn't it true that shareholders can sue the decision makers if
> >> the shareholders perceive the decision m. as NOT making
> >> decisions in the shareholders' best interest, i.e., enriching
> >> the shareholders as much as possible?
> >
> > This is possible for C corps, but would no longer be possible
> > for B corps.
>
> I wonder if there has ever been a lawsuit such as this over a
> firm devoting too many resources to non-business activities.
> As I said, a certain amount of this is perfectly consistent with
> the notion of "maximizing profits." I suppose people could
> disagree about the amount or type of such activities.

Companies presumably have the right to define their business
in any way their boards and shareholders see fit, including some
activities outsiders might not deem to be "business".

dk

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:23:07 PM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:27:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > On 8/17/2022 7:05 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:56:48 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>> On 8/17/2022 5:44 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> They re-release and re-re release Gould because they
> > >>>>> think they make a profit doing it. Certainly making a
> > >>>>> profit enables other activities. There is no question.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The real question is how those profits will be used.
> > >>>> Will they be used (at least partially) in manners that
> > >>>> benefit a broad music audience and that contribute
> > >>>> to education and social welfare? Or will they be just
> > >>>> just padding Sony's wallet even more?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My cats would like to know. They are keen to find out
> > >>>> what can they get out of this.
> > >>>
> > >>> In general firms behave in a way consistent with making
> > >>> their stockholders as much money as possible. Any other
> > >>> action will incur stockholder wrath. This does not mean
> > >>> that firms don't engage in "socially ware" behavior, as
> > >>> having a good reputation contributes to money making.
> > >>
> > >> Isn't it true that shareholders can sue the decision makers if
> > >> the shareholders perceive the decision m. as NOT making
> > >> decisions in the shareholders' best interest, i.e., enriching
> > >> the shareholders as much as possible?
> > >
> > > This is possible for C corps, but would no longer be possible
> > > for B corps.
> >
> > I wonder if there has ever been a lawsuit such as this over a
> > firm devoting too many resources to non-business activities.
> > As I said, a certain amount of this is perfectly consistent with
> > the notion of "maximizing profits." I suppose people could
> > disagree about the amount or type of such activities.
> Companies presumably have the right to define their business
> in any way their boards and shareholders see fit, including some
> activities outsiders might not deem to be "business".
>
> dk

Shareholder activism is nothing new but probably on the rise.

Control of a large enough bloc = influence over board of directors (and who serves in that capacity).

Certainly there has been plenty of litigation in this area.

In a related matter, there are some current disputes in Germany over the accuracy of ESG claims [environmental, social, and governance policies] made by certain publicly traded firms /funds.

On Thursday, August 18, 2022 at 5:13:31 PM UTC-4, number_six wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:23:07 PM UTC-7, dan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:27:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > On 8/17/2022 7:05 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:56:48 PM UTC-7, gggg gggg wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 3:08:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >>> On 8/17/2022 5:44 PM, Dan Koren wrote:
> > > >>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:55:04 PM UTC-7, Frank Berger wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> They re-release and re-re release Gould because they
> > > >>>>> think they make a profit doing it. Certainly making a
> > > >>>>> profit enables other activities. There is no question.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The real question is how those profits will be used.
> > > >>>> Will they be used (at least partially) in manners that
> > > >>>> benefit a broad music audience and that contribute
> > > >>>> to education and social welfare? Or will they be just
> > > >>>> just padding Sony's wallet even more?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> My cats would like to know. They are keen to find out
> > > >>>> what can they get out of this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In general firms behave in a way consistent with making
> > > >>> their stockholders as much money as possible. Any other
> > > >>> action will incur stockholder wrath. This does not mean
> > > >>> that firms don't engage in "socially ware" behavior, as
> > > >>> having a good reputation contributes to money making.
> > > >>
> > > >> Isn't it true that shareholders can sue the decision makers if
> > > >> the shareholders perceive the decision m. as NOT making
> > > >> decisions in the shareholders' best interest, i.e., enriching
> > > >> the shareholders as much as possible?
> > > >
> > > > This is possible for C corps, but would no longer be possible
> > > > for B corps.
> > >
> > > I wonder if there has ever been a lawsuit such as this over a
> > > firm devoting too many resources to non-business activities.
> > > As I said, a certain amount of this is perfectly consistent with
> > > the notion of "maximizing profits." I suppose people could
> > > disagree about the amount or type of such activities.
> > Companies presumably have the right to define their business
> > in any way their boards and shareholders see fit, including some
> > activities outsiders might not deem to be "business".
> >
> > dk
> Shareholder activism is nothing new but probably on the rise.
>
> Control of a large enough bloc = influence over board of directors (and who serves in that capacity).
>
> Certainly there has been plenty of litigation in this area.
>
> In a related matter, there are some current disputes in Germany over the accuracy of ESG claims [environmental, social, and governance policies] made by certain publicly traded firms /funds.

I would contend that if anyone could hear the Goldbergs played by Bach or one of his contemporaries, the satisfaction and fulfillment would last about 5 or 10 minutes. It’s such a puffed up fetish in the classical music world.

We know how Rachmaninov played many of his own works. Do we want to declare differing interpretations wrong? No one does that. I’ve never even seen Rachmaninov’s recordings referred to as “authentic”. The good news is that the music world seems to be moving away from the HIP police.