Dave Winer asks a pertinent question:
Eisner made over $700 million in five years as Disney's CEO. Where does it stop? He's 59 years old. How much money does he want?
It would appear that there are two outlines of people, those that have an unstuck relationship with money, and those who have a binding relationship, whereby greed is no more an arithmetic factor, but a geometric one: the more they earn, the more they need to earn. This latter group ought to be checked into a clinic for substance abuse.
Think of it this way, keeping in mind that I find nothing wrong with being filthy rich. If Eisner made 700 million over 6 years, he could have given 600 of them to 1200 new, unknown and worthy artists, made them ecstatically happy and launched them possibly into further artistic production endeavours. He would have still been filthy rich. OK, so the suggestion may make the artists complacent. But the point is the same: all the hiked end-consumer costs fulfill too many execs' substance addiction.
Today, if I see the Disney trademark, I think twice and 90% of the time convince myself not to purchase.
The Napster thing is not just a technological change, it is also market forces at work. And if Eisner & the RIAA want protection from that, then they can be called anti-liberal economics. They like to use the word piracy, I prefer to add 'highway robbery'. Supply and demand...
I rest my case on the geometric greed factor herewith documented.
