What's Happening at Cricinfo
dougie
gr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <02b2d638...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
> Brian D'Souza <brian.dsou...@wcom.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed that CricInfo.org seems to be morphing into
> > CricInfo.com. Does this mean that they are now a for profit
> > entity?
yes
> >
> Brian:
>
> With a staggering 95 million page impressions in March 2000 alone, who
> can blame CricInfo for going dotcom? CI’s stock (privately owned) is
> now valued at $150 M.
Who can blame a supposedly not for profit .org who used the labour of
"volunteers" to become a .com for the benefit of the few? nobody at
all :) Who can blame those who ran a .org for becoming rich on the
back of volunteers? err, nobody :) Who can blame those who employ
computer programmers at slave wages? Nobody :) Who can blame those who
do deals with media moguls and use the labour of "volunteers" to make
a mint? NOBODY :)
>Indian internet giant Satyam owns 25%. If
> Badrinarayan Seshadri owns 1% of the remaining shares ($112.5 M), he
> becomes a millionaire. In these days of instant dotcom millionaires,
> if ever anyone deserved to become a millionaire, it would be Badri.
> Cricket lovers hooked on CI commentary on IRC remember Badri as the
> dean (or is it doyen?) of CI commentators. Of course, Badri’s massive
> contribution to CI goes far beyond commentary. He was responsible for
> database development on CI’s website, and as President, CI India
> quickly rose to become the premier site for cricket content in the sub-
> continent. Now for on-line scores, from the domestic U-13 to the Ranji
> Finals, you first go to CI. And CI India’s impressive stable of cricket
> writers – the venerable Partab Ramchand, Vasu Anand, AC Ganesh, CI
> India’s First Lady, Sankhya Krishnan – any of them could have won the
> Pulitzer prize for cricket if ever there was such a prize.
If you want a job why don't you just ask? Or are you already working
for them?
> Also many, many thanks to the splendid work at other CI sites: CI
> Australia- Rick Eyre (Rick, we miss you, please come back to #cricket),
> Sir Travis Elliott Basevi, Phil Shead, etc.; CI UK- Jeff Green, Robin
> Abrahams, William Turrell, and of course CEO Simon King (coolPom) and
> Pete Griffith; CI RSA- Keith Lane and veteran cricket writer Trevor
> Chesterfield; CI Pakistan- Suhael Ahmed; CI New Zealand- Duanne Pettit,
> Dean Bedford, Frenchy, etc.; and CI Zimbabwe – John Ward. My apologies
> for not knowing anyone from CI West Indies and CI Sri Lanka – they are
> fine sites too. Sorry if I have left out any worthy names from the
> other sites.
Nobody denies that plenty of people have put in a lot of work, but...
a couple of questions? Why does cricinfo.org still exist if it's a
$125m .com? For people who used the internet and profited from the
game of cricket, shouldn't protocol be followed and the .org be
dropped if it's now a for-profit company?
Just out of interest, how many other "volunteers" are there out there
who've worked for nothing only to have some turd profit from it? Sure,
plenty of people contributed knowing that anything they submitted
became the "property of cricinfo", but did they expect a percentage of
their hard work to be sold off for a profit? How much of this profit
has gone back into the game? How many junior cricketers have
benifitted? Where are the annual reports for interested people to
check out? Who are the individuals who own a percentage? Who are the
volunteers who got nothing for their work? What percentage of
cricinfo's profits has gone back into junior cricket in India,
Pakistan, Australia etc? Will you contribute to cricinfo now that
you're not being paid, it doesn't benefit junior cricketers, and some
dickhead profits from your work?
Cricinfo was supposed to be a non-profit .org that would exist for the
benefit of cricket, not the bank accounts of a few. Plenty of people
contributed thinking it was a volunteer organisation. What happens to
the work of those people who don't want others to profit from their
volunteer work? Will it be deleted from Cricinfo's servers now that
cricnfo is profiting from their work and no longer benefiting the
game? Do those people have a choice?
green...@my-deja.com
You have pretty much made a framework for to build a lawsuit. That of
course depends on the nature of any cricinfo.com IPO.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
gr...@my-deja.com
dougie <mic...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> In article <8hh82a$o4u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> gr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <02b2d638...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>,
> > Brian D'Souza <brian.dsou...@wcom.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've noticed that CricInfo.org seems to be morphing into
> > > CricInfo.com. Does this mean that they are now a for profit
> > > entity?
>
> yes
>
> > >
> > Brian:
> >
> > With a staggering 95 million page impressions in March 2000 alone,
who
> > can blame CricInfo for going dotcom? CI’s stock (privately owned)
is
> > now valued at $150 M.
>
> Who can blame a supposedly not for profit .org who used the labour of
> "volunteers" to become a .com for the benefit of the few? nobody at
> all :) Who can blame those who ran a .org for becoming rich on the
> back of volunteers? err, nobody :) Who can blame those who employ
> computer programmers at slave wages? Nobody :) Who can blame those who
> do deals with media moguls and use the labour of "volunteers" to make
> a mint? NOBODY :)
Sorry if my unabashed praise of CricInfo has rubbed some people the
wrong way. I do not work for CI nor am I connected with any one from
CI. In December 1997, CI ran a fund-raising appeal on #cricket and I
made a very modest contribution of $100. Of course now that CI is
doing so well financially, it doesn’t need to make these appeals. I’m
just a cricket junkie who gets his daily fix by visiting cricket.org.
I speculated that the market value of CI’s stock is $150 M just based
on media reports that India-based internet company Satyam had invested
$37.5 M for a 25% share of CI’s stock. Since CI’s stock is privately
held, CI is under no obligation to release profit-and-loss statements
to the public or reveal who owns how many shares. But I earnestly hope
that the many volunteers who contributed to making CI what it is today
can somehow be compensated. Dougie, didn't you write the software that
CI uses for scoring matches? Isn’t the software-generated commentary
which CI puts out over #cricket called dougie comms? For the
contributions you’ve made, dougie, I'm sure you will be rewarded,
hopefully sooner than later.
dougie
>
>
>You have pretty much made a framework for to build a lawsuit. That of
>course depends on the nature of any cricinfo.com IPO.
Not really interested in talk of lawsuits and don't deny anyone a
profit from all the hard work they have put in. It was made clear
whenever anyone contributed that anything they submitted became the
property of cricinfo. Fair enough.
CI is fantastic and it's still the only website I use for cricket news
and stats. I still contribute, although very rarely, and what I do
submit isn't professional enough to deserve payment for. But plenty of
people did contribute on the understanding that CI was a non-profit
organisation and that it existed for the benefit of the game of
cricket, not for the benefit of a few individuals, they put in a lot
of time and probably weren't paid for it. The issue is whether some
sort of public discussion should have taken place in forums like this
(or on the CI web site) before their work was sold off for a profit.
dougie
> Dougie, didn't you write the software that
>CI uses for scoring matches? Isn’t the software-generated commentary
>which CI puts out over #cricket called dougie comms? For the
>contributions you’ve made, dougie, I'm sure you will be rewarded,
>hopefully sooner than later.
lol, not me, it was travis I think, or it was written by someone else
then improved on by travis.
Moby Dick
> You have pretty much made a framework for to build a lawsuit. That of
> course depends on the nature of any cricinfo.com IPO.
Oh yes... it certainly *seems* that if this is the case, cricinfo may have
a very expensive pay-day coming up...... then again.. that's only the
case if the following piece is exactly true word-for-word. I've a feeling
however that in the changeover between .org and .com, cricinfo were very
careful to differentiate between the two systems. In this case cricinfo
is in the right and so long as they paid their contributors during the
time that they opperated as a profitable venture, they're doing exactly
the right thing.
Moby Dick.
The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
AFAIK the software was written in SA. It is called "dougie" after a
notable SA scorer and statistician - Dougie Ettlinger.
Dean Bedford
Personally I think Dougie makes some good points here. I think it would
be nice if someone from crinfo would answer them.
Two other concerns I have. One is that Crinfo now seems to be in
partnerships with the various cricket authorities of the world. Its
hard to know how this benefits the cricket follower for the Internets
main cricket reporter to be in bed with the games powers.
Also part of the above seems to be Cricinfo taking over any other
website and making it part of Crinfo Inc. Just yesterday I noticed the
Lords website has been taken over by Crinfo and perfectly interesting
unique material removed to conform with Crinfo styles. Don't they know
that if you're surfing cricket on the web variety is the spice of life.
Dean
Alex Brown
>
> Also part of the above seems to be Cricinfo taking over any other
> website and making it part of Crinfo Inc. Just yesterday I noticed the
> Lords website has been taken over by Crinfo and perfectly interesting
> unique material removed to conform with Crinfo styles. Don't they know
> that if you're surfing cricket on the web variety is the spice of life.
The CricInfo team are all Borg.
You will be assimilated.
Alex.