I followed the developments with a lot of curiosity. It's great that it worked, and, it is a treatable condition.
The crowdsourcing on this problem, wasn't, for me, the major issue. The issue that interested me the most was the boundary pushing. The openness of the doctor's team, and their dedication to save a life. In the end, they were reaching the same diagnosis on their own.
The fact that it was a health puzzle, doesn't actually change the game much. As long as you keep focused that in the other end, it's a human being needing help.
In a case like this, it is needed a experts team to weed out the proposals, but, humble enough to accept different suggestions and solutions. These are not easy to find.
So, as in almost every other way that crowdsourcing has been tried, it's the team in charge of the implementation and execution, that actually needs to be special, not the crowd.
My sincere congratulations to the team involved in the case.
There were a few things in this speech that I really disliked, and, some that I completely disagree with. As Drew said, we have to consider the audience, but even so...
The thing that made me tweet him immediatly after seeing the video, was the decrease of the Music Market. Mike, here, as shown us the numbers several times. What as fallen is the CD selling part of the music businness. The overall music market has actually grown.
Also, the way that he kept referring to P2P as a "BAD". P2P is neither good nor bad. It is. Simply. P2P is a technology allowing to share digital content. P2P doesn't mean "pirates". Because pirates don't share, they only take. By force.
So, from someone that I consider a beacon, that has shown me how well informed and educated on these subjects he is, this, simply doesn't fit, and, it's completely uncharacteristic.
There were a few things that I didn't like about the Transparency part of the speech. It is not Internet's fault that no one with a sane mind trusts politicians, it's their own fault, and the amount or lack of transparency will not change it, until the politicians change their ways. Yeah right...
The waiting for dinosaurs to die, was quite good actualy and it sure reflects the reality. Let's hope for a way to speed up that process. (Metaphorically, of course).
The rest of the speech was at Lessig level. Very good, very well paced and interesting and captivating. I do like his presentations and speeches. I only had trouble swalowing the above points, on this one.
I will wait patiently for his answer to my Tweet. LOL.
Well known trick. This is pure PR in it's most ugly form. But, it works.
Now, let's see if we will ever find out what the actual numbers were? The value donated from this sales is exactly: ????
If, instead, those same tracks, and more, because there wouldn't be a limitation on their numbers, were placed on a website, to be downloaded after you made a donation DIRECTLY to some REAL institution already on the field, with or without tiers, I would bet it would top that number.
If the artists intention was to donate the songs, in exchange for some publicity, it was acomplished, if the purppose was to increase the monetary help to the victims of that catastrophe, it would be done, if the purppose was to simply sell more shiny round plastic thingies, no, that no.
So, again I see a good opportunity wasted, again I see the OLD way of one way thinking working. And the culprit in all this are the file-sharers, who may probably be persons that have already donated to that cause, in one way or another.
OLD media thinks that since it is the center of it's own universe, it is the center of everyone else's too.
It will take time for that "Wall" to break. Until then, at their eyes and at the eyes of those subjected to their crude, but effective PR, all other options are "infringing".
I hope to see their end during my lifetime, but most probably, will not.
When you start social networking you need to base yourself on who you truly are. Other then that, you are not only exposed to be deemed fake, but, completely ruin your efforts of building any kind of network.
So, it's no wonder.
What I feel you left unsaid, is that even the lies will actualy tell who you are. Also the choices of not divulging certain details, also tells volumes about you.
I am a translator of subtitles for tv shows.
I helped create and mantain a team of translators.
In our 3 and a half years of existance, as team, we've translated hundreds of subtitltles, thus helping those shows to become more popular, and increased their value, both commercilly and artistically.
We don't charge for our services. We do it because we love to do it. We do it because it helps us get better in both languages. We do it because we can and doing it helps others that can't. We do it with absolutelly NO interest in money.
How it's used, it's not our problem.
To do it, we use transcripts created by other fans, that we make a point to aknowledge. Not because we MUST, but because it's FAIR. We only ASK the same courtesy.
To this day, I've never even stopped to think if there's any kind of illegality or infringment in this, and I think I never will. I started doing it because some shows I wanted to watch with my family, didn't have subtitles in the languages we ALL could read. I still do it mainly for them, I just changed from family, to, who ever may be interested.
The thing is, I, we, don't really need the subtitles. But, being able to do something that we know it will give someone the chance to enjoy something that was otherwise impossible, and, doing it is FUN and Chalenging and teaches us new things every day, I really can't think of a reason NOT to do it.
Anyway, I will never stop, even if they try to make us pay. The only ones that will suffer are the ones that will not get their subtitles. Will they still watch the show? Will that show be worth the same? After burning us on the stake for it, will they be respected for it?
One other small thing, why shows must be TV Shows? Why should great stories and spetacular shows be dependent of the whims of TV's bureaucrats? Isn't it time to get rid of Yet Another Stupid Businness Model?
Stream it, with ads, publish it for free with ads, ask for fansubs and get rid of TV execs that are in the businness of producing ad spaces by inserting anything in the middle. If that "anything" attracts viewers they charge more for the ads, if not, they change it for "something" that will.
The total disregard for their consumers, will kill them, if a new competitor arrives.
That waiver could be pasted on any song, and, also, could be cut from any song, rendering it unusable. You would never be sure if the song had been edited or not.
As for the purppose of the post comment, it's abundatelly clear that governments everywhere are bought and paid for by the Big Media Corps. They aren't capabble of unbiased decisions. One thing they are forgetting is that file-sharers are growing everyday, and pretty soon they will be abble to vote. Some, have already voted. With organized parties like "Pirate Party" file-sharers will have a voice.
I really don't care about legalities or rights or whatever, my main concern would be my ratio. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go find out.
Re: Re: Re: The flaw in Mike's economic plan that he continues to ignore
Why do you think Mike, or anyone else, has to create a businness model for you?
You, if interested part, needs the model, either pay someone for it, or, pull it out of your head. Why demmand anyone to create one, just because that person points the flaws in other models?
Authors, artists, content producers of every kind, need to take advantage of new technologies. That's a fact. Either do, or die. But it's up to each one of them to come up with a working model, instead of relying on "someone else's" bright ideas.
Last time I checked there's plenty of professionals eager to help you build it. Just provide the personal angle that is the cornerstone of today's world.
It's up to you. Don't demmand anyone. Do it yourself.
Wich you assume, in your good will mind, that the RIAA is paying ALL the artists ALL that is owed to them. And I mean the RIAA as one organization, but also the RIAA as the group, considering all the labels that are there.
FYI, there are several lawsuits againts RIAA companies, by artists, claiming they got cheated.
I've been reading and reading, trying to understand, but, this question remains.
What is actualy copyrighted?
Take for instance a movie. If I have a DVD and rip it to divx, or xvid, or rmvb or whatever, I don't get a copy of a DVD. I get a version, lower in quality and options, and basicaly a different set of "0 and 1's" from the DVD. That version requires a different equipment (software) to produce a "similar but different" experience from that one I get from the DVD. My question is, the copyright extends to these versions that are NOT copyed but transformed?
Isn't this "reversal engineering"?
Imagine I don't have a DVD player. The only way to access the media I have is by transforming it into something else, using, maybe my neighbours computer... Isn't this "Fair Use"?
If then having a VERSION of something I share it, who am I hurting? Whose rights?
Ok, I really don't expect anyone here to answer, I just have this question. Maybe one day I'll find a satisfying answer.