Actually, I play it safe within reasonable bounds. If I am calling from a single party notification state to a different state with single party notification legislation, and I am aware of the recording being made, I am not violating either state's law, nor federal law. If, however, I am calling from or to a state with all party notification I am required to disclose the fact the call is being recorded - except for one situation that I find rather convenient. When I call a party that has an auto-attendant (such as a banking institution), and said auto-attendant states "this call may be recorded", I take the "may be recorded" as a permissive statement as opposed to a one sided disclosure on their part. In those cases all parties have been notified without me having to make the disclosure and I can then record the ensuing conversation once I get in touch with a human being. Federal law defers to the state involved in the event one or more states involved have all party notification legislation. This is what the Linda Tripp/Monica Lewinski taped calls was all about.
I checked with legal counsel on this matter prior to getting my equipment, and as long as I adhere to the sate with the heaviest requirement I am fine. For further info you can check out: http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.recordlaw.html That is the site I refer to whenever I am calling into a state I am not familiar with. If I call a company I want to record, and if their auto-attendant does not advise that calls may be recorded, I will ask the person answering what state they are located within. I then check the web site above for states I am not familiar with before moving forward. If I have called a person outside the US I do not worry about violating any laws as federal law prevails, and I am the single party that is aware of the recording being made - hence adhering to the single party notification law. Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:profoxtech- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Dettman > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NF] Yearly support fees vs. hourly fees > > Gil, > > <<I have, as a direct result of some of these shakedown tactics, begun > to > record every call between myself and any tax authority (Fed or NY), > financial institution, insurance company, or vendor. >> > > You may not be as legal as you think. While NYS does allow one party > only > notification that a recording is being made under the wire tapping > laws, > that applies only to calls made *within* the state. > > Also in most cases anytime a recording is made, a judge can decide to > throw out the recording as evidence if both parties are not informed > they > were being recorded. > > The recommendation of most lawyers is that you get permission from > the > other party before you begin recording and then once again at the start > of a > recording before anything else is said. > > Jim. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:profoxtech- > [email protected]] On > Behalf Of Gil Hale RR > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:46 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [NF] Yearly support fees vs. hourly fees > > We have a similar tax thing out here in NY state, where a service > contract > or software license is not taxable. But, each of my clients, when told > about that, have opted to have me charge the Sales Tax lest they get > audited. In NY it is not unusual for one entity (me, for instance) to > be > subjected to an audit. Then when there is blood in the water they > would go > ofter the NY based clients for failure to pay Use Tax when they "should > have", even if the transaction is not taxable as with tech support or > license fees. It is government sponsored extortion, where companies > pay up > rather than go through the costlier option of fighting a full blown > audit(car dealerships, juicy targets). It is really a shame, but I > guess > collectively we see it as the cost of doing business within the state > criminal enterprise known as NY. > > I have, as a direct result of some of these shakedown tactics, begun to > record every call between myself and any tax authority (Fed or NY), > financial institution, insurance company, or vendor. You would be > amazed at > how quickly I have turned matters around when I advise that I have a > legal > copy of the conversation on such and such date where I was told thus, > therefore... $99 for the software, $99 for the USB voice modem. Saves > the > .wav files on the hard drive, managed within a simple database, had > Caller > ID, DateTime stamp, length of conversation, and allows me to make > memos. > With some states all parties in a conversation must be notified before > a > recording can be made (CA is one of them). But for the vast majority > it is > single party notification, and I am that one party <g>. NY is such a > state, > and I do record a lot of stuff, just in case. > > Gil > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:profoxtech- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of KAM.covad > > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 4:22 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [NF] Yearly support fees vs. hourly fees > > > > I think this is a great idea if it works for you and your clients > will > > pay. > > > > If you are located in California, there is one thing to be aware of. > If > > you require a monthly/yearly/whatever payment, it is considered to be > a > > sale and is taxable. If your support is optional then it is labor and > > not taxable as long as it is handled by phone/email/etc. This could > be > > a major consideration because the State will not go to your client to > > get any back taxes. We have been through two audits and had to deal > > with this issue. Another thing to consider is that if you send the > > client anything tangible (floppy disk, cd, dvd, paper report, etc) > then > > your support is taxable for that month (if you bill monthly). If your > > client downloads updates and reports, etc then it is not taxable. I > am > > not a lawyer, just someone who has been through some terrible sales > tax > > audits. One lasted over 6 months. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Gil Hale RR > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:30 AM > > Subject: RE: [NF] Yearly support fees vs. hourly fees > > > > > > I do not sell annual or other maintenance plans, and avoid that kind > of > > terminology like the plague. It makes it too easy for folks to > unplug > > a > > nice revenue stream. I do not sell my software solutions either. I > > provide > > "maintenance" (support) on a No Additional Charge basis! What the > > hell? > > Read on... > > > > I license my software solutions with an initial setup/config fee > which > > is > > minimal - really minimal. Sometimes no initial fees at all. Then I > > charge > > a reasonable monthly license fee, where over the course of a few > years > > I > > recoup what I would have gained with an initial full fee for a single > > pay > > billing. But, for the remaining months/years I keep receiving these > > monthly > > payments for a client having the right to keep using my software, and > > gaining income benefit far in excess of its monthly license fee. I > > also > > provide support/maintenance on a No Additional Charge basis for > clients > > paying me a monthly recurring fee. I can come in very inexpensively > > for my > > clients with respect to how their cash flow gets hit, and in the > longer > > run > > I end up generating far more revenue from my offerings. For > instance, > > I > > have one client who has been paying me $1,000 per month for 43 > > dealerships > > to use my software (very inexpensive on a per store basis). They > have > > been > > with me since 2001, just about 8 years, 96 months. Do the math. I > > could > > never have charged them that kind of money for that solution, despite > > it > > being well worth the investment. This kind of arrangement makes my > > software > > cost effective on both a monthly cash flow and a return on investment > > basis > > for my clients. And it gives me monthly incentive to keep doing the > > best > > possible job I can for them. When they request upgrades or > consulting > > I > > handle those items on a no additional charge basis, whether it is > > directly > > related to my solution or not. For all the months I have had to do > > nothing > > for the income as they keep on using it internally with their own > > personnel, > > a few weeks here and there for special projects is fine with me <g>. > > The > > name of the game now-a-days, more than ever before, is client > retention > > and > > revenue stream protection. This is how I am accomplishing it, > > providing > > excellent solutions for beyond reasonable pricing, and not trying to > > nickel > > and dime a client at every turn. I get my recurring revenue stream > > from > > multiple clients, they get my attention whenever they need anything > > extra - > > plus make and/or save money using my software in excess of the > revenue > > they > > provide me. If they begin to clip services in a tough economy I am > > betting > > I will be the last vendor standing as I not only make them money, I > ask > > for > > relatively little in return. But when I sum the income from all > > clients > > each month I find I am doing just fine, without having to chase the > > next > > dollar while needing to ignore my current clients in the process. > > > > Of course, one can't simply flip a switch and migrate to this kind of > > model > > unless there is enough cash on hand to survive the initial lean > months > > as a > > core client base is built. I was lucky in being able to bide my time > > as I > > built my business around this model. I know another FoxHead who > chimes > > in > > once in a while in ProFox who has begun to adopt this kind of > business > > model. He has a full time (or more <g>) job, and can afford (from > what > > I > > can tell) to take his time in building up his client base on the > > recurring > > fee and minimal initial charge business model. If he continues to do > > an > > excellent job for his clients, and he grows his business a bit at a > > time, > > keeps his overhead low (work out of the house), his "side income" may > > well > > exceed his employment income in time. Other folks may have a spouse > > whose > > income can help with the reduced income as one transitions from full > up > > front billing to a smaller initial billing with recurring fee billing > > model. > > For others yet it may have to be a matter of offering the smaller > > initial > > fee with recurring fees on a situational basis for some offerings, > but > > not > > all. > > > > It is not for everyone, but from where I stand this is the ultimate > > win-win > > for myself and my clients. > > > > My two cents... > > > > Gil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:profoxtech- > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions General > Account > > > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:04 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [NF] Yearly support fees vs. hourly fees > > > > > > Question for those of you who sell yearly maintenance/support > > contracts > > > on > > > your software: suppose a customer says to you: "I don't want to > buy > > > the > > > yearly maintenance contract. I only want to pay for the hours > where > > I > > > actually need you to fix something for us." (...because he's > > thinking > > > that he'll have little or no problems for the year, given the > > > software's > > > solid track record.) > > > > > > How do you respond to such a customer? > > > > > > tia, > > > --Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
