Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TGL WHAAAAAAAT! Alerts, thoughts, discussion. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LANCE B who wrote (62142)	9/6/2000 8:41:10 PM
From: Tom Allinder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 150070

LANCE.... COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE.... I put in my own orders for NSTG today and only got 7500 shares (not many sellers in the .30s). ALEX plays this stock for every penny he can get at our expense. For the last year or more, this stock has developed a reputation for going up strongly (owing to the low float) but then comes right back down. We now know that it was ALEX all along and we had that confirmation today. He is supposed to know the company well enough but continually hammers the stock. We also saw clearly how ALEX has been hammering NSTG with a small inventory... frequently less than 50K shares to do the job of killing the stock. Well guess what? I mentioned this before.... I have accounts with brokerages that make markets on OTCBB stocks. I can go on the bid or offer the same as they can. I would strongly encourage everyone to open up an account with a real brokerage. You pay higher commissions but you can go in and be the bid/offer on these stocks (OTCBB and Pink Sheet). It is the same as using the ECNs on NASDAQ stocks... but, not nearly as fast and has to be done over the phone but works nevertheless. Some people have told me that I can't do this because it is stock manipulation.... How can it be stock manipulation? If ALEX is bidding .33 and offering .37 and is the high bid and low offer, why can't I bid a higher price? Why should the MMs dictate what I pay for my stock? We all know that HRZG and NITE are the biggest MMs in the game... they clear more than 80% of the online brokers. We have all complained about NITE and HRZG but they are clearing the online people like mytrack, ameritrade, NDB and many others. Why is this important? Well, it is because too many online broker traders and investors use MARKET ORDERS to buy and sell stock. NITE and HRZG are going to buy your stock at the LOWEST possible price and sell you stock at the HIGHEST possible price.... not a fair price but a price that will benefit them the most. These guys can move stocks down significantly on low volume MARKET SELL ORDERS and move stocks up on low volume market buys (this occurs far less often). Market conditions play a key role as well. If the market is running, MMs are likely to go long with everyone else. If the market sucks or the stock is a POS, they aren't buying it either. Who says that the stock price structure has to be dictated by a few sellers who put in Market Order sells before the market opens or during the hours the market is open then the order being subject to HRZG or NITE filling it at the price THEY want? When sellers or buyers are using MARKET ORDERS, the MM can DICTATE the price. Why should this be? Not anymore.... I will not let the MMs dictate what I pay for stock. I will determine my own price, pay the bigger commission but not get burned anymore. Finally, I understand that many OTCBB/Pink Sheet participants cannot afford commissions that a real brokerages charge for transactions.... BUT people can be patient and USE LIMIT ORDERS to protect themselves. If you own a stock that has moved up a lot, sell some; place limit orders AHEAD of MOVEMENT of the stock. Take some profits and realize that the playing field is NOT LEVEL for the online investor of OTCBB/Pink Sheet stocks. It is still not quite level to me using a real brokerage because I can't see ALL OF THE ORDERS the way the MMs do, but... I can certainly determine what I am going to buy and sell a stock at with regard to price. Tom

To: LANCE B who wrote (62142)	9/7/2000 1:32:03 AM
From: CIMA	Respond to of 150070

Good news for DSNY? September 6, 2000, 1:24 PM PDT MP3.com Willfully Violated Copyrights, Judge Rules The music site, which could be required to pay $118 million in damages, says it will appeal the decision. By James Evans A U.S. federal judge ruled Wednesday that MP3.com (MPPP) willfully violated the copyrights of the Universal Music Group. MP3.com could be required to pay damages of at least $118 million, or $25,000 for each of Universal's estimated 4,700 CD collection, according to the judge's ruling. That figure could change, depending on the number of "qualifying CDs" that will be determined in the final phase of the trial in November, he said. MP3.com immediately said that it would appeal Judge Jed Rakoff's ruling. Rakoff stated that MP3.com willfully violated the copyright and did it with financial gain in mind. "There is no doubt in the court's mind that the potential for huge profits in the rapidly expanding world of the Internet is the lure that tempted an otherwise generally responsible company like MP3.com to break the law, and that will also tempt others to do so if too low a level is set for the statutory damages in this case," Rakoff wrote. "Some of the evidence in this case strongly suggests that some companies operating in this area of the Internet may have a misconception that, because their technology is somewhat novel, they are somehow immune from the ordinary applications of laws of the United States, including copyright law." Universal has said that it wants others that also infringe on its copyrights to stop doing so and will pursue them through legal channels. MP3.com had settled other copyright infringement cases with the four other major music labels – Warner Brothers Music Group, EMI Group (EMIPY) , BMG Entertainment and Sony Music Entertainment. MP3.com paid $20 million to settle each case, according to analysts and observers. MP3.com spokesman Greg Wilfahrt could not be reached to comment. The Recording Industry Association of America filed each lawsuit on the behalf of the music labels. But each label had to come to a separate licensing agreement with MP3.com. James Evans writes for the IDG News Service.