I think you hit the nail on the head "the cost of doing it the new way relative to doing it the old way is much higher for legacy businesses ". And that is the real killer forn legacy business. When your young and small, 6-8 people in a dorm room or garage working on the next big thing, and you hit a snag or a dead end whether it is with a design, a product, or a business method, you chuck all the previous work and go on to something else. I.e. innovat, adapt change rapidly. When you are GM ot Toyota or HP or MS and you have thousands of employees and millions of dollars invested in a product line, and it hits a snag, it is unworkable (in the sense of cost and bottom line) to throw it all away and start over. Instead you do your best to protect what you have, because to do almost anything else is suicide. As was styated in the post, most major companies are cvompletely unable to adapt and change fast enough to be "good enough" fast enough. There are 8 or 10 or 20 layers between concept and decision. If you are start up and have a staff of 10, problems are recognized and decisions are made early. If you are legacy and staff of thousands, problems are recognized on Monday and decisions are made next December.
This reminds me of one of the the big things that came out of NUMMI and that the auto industry really benefited from, at least initially. That was increased simplicity. Toyota had figured out, strip all of the excesses out of the system, make the cars as simply as possible, with fewer changes in tooling, or simpler changes, share as many components across models as possible. Make the cars "good enough", but not perfect. When the first toyotas hit the shores, they were crappy cars. But, they were cheap and ran and were at least minimally reliable-"good enough". And Big Auto COULD NOT see that that was a desirable quality, they just knew that they were being driven under.
What I find interesting, is that out of the whole NUMMI project, a brand new industry was developed that was no longer directly tied to car plants or even manufatcturing, the whole LEA/Six Sigma thing. If you trace it back, almost all of these LEAN and SS programs come from the toyota manufacturing process. Now they apply these concepts to everything. Doesn't always work, sometimes it is just thrown on as it's own kind of window dressing, but it has really beneffited a lot of indutries. If GM had used the real concepts and correctly trained there personnel, I bet that they would not have had the problems they did.
So what is the real world solution? It is impractical for most school districts to have a full time IT person at every school, which is what would be required to have a real-time "human" filtering process in place. It is impractical for a teacher to watch everything 30 students do while in a computer lab, or to vet every search or page access/red flag. However I, and many others, feel that there should be some kind of gatekeeper/watchdog at the access point of our children to the wider world outside of school and home. In the old days this person was the school librarian (or school board in the case of text books). He/She ordered the books and periodicals for the school and vetted all of the incoming material. They also helped restrict access to age appropriate material, i.e.2nd graders not having access to the Human Sexuality texts, but the 7th/8th graders did have access.
Even though "all the kids have iPhones with 3G", that still doesn't negate a schools responsibility. Just like in the days before the internet, parents are responsible for what happens away from school, and in the case of the iPhones, I would think that parents would be responsible for that. But, just like I would be upset if my school subscribed to Playboy (the nudie magazine) I would be upset if my child was able to access Playboy.com the porn website from the schools computers.
All this being said, what is the real world solution?
Yes, but you can do all of those things using e-mail, thumb drives, cd-roms, Blackberrys, cell phones, landlines, or hard copy documents (well, except for viruses on some of them) also. And there is no outcry to ban the use of MS Outlook on gov't computers or to not use phones anymore either.
As a government employee that uses government furnished computers and networks, I am required to complete annual training on computer security. Prior to 2009, the training was pretty pointless "click-thru" type where you just kept hitting next until you wee done. In 2009 and 2010, a much more annoying "interactive" training was developed, in which you have to interact with and and answer questions about different scenarios. The "file-sharing or P2P" portion pretty much pushes the same agenda, word for word, that the entertainment lobby puts out: that you can "leak" classified information, you can get viruses, you can lose sensitive information.
I have found that the sites that let me post anonymously first, ie testing the waters, are much more likely to get me to post in the first place, and thus to become involved in the conversation. If I become involved in the conversation once, I am much more likely to continue to return and be involved in the conversation in the future. This is how you build brand loyalty.
In this day, if ISP's don't want to be dumb pipe, it's pretty much too late. There are DSL through one of three phone providers, Cable, wireless from Clear, or hughes net satellite. Not all are cheap, but the prices are coming down as competition increases. There is also the option of going with just a cell phone and 3G / 4G through that. This is not meant to be a discussion of ISP's and competition amongst them, but the realization that in most of the country, it ain't 1995 anymore and your choices are dial-up or AOL (I know, also dial-up)
Trans·form‚ 1.to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose. 2.to change in condition, nature, or character; convert. 3.to change into another substance; transmute. 7.to undergo a change in form, appearance, or character; become transformed. Related forms: trans·form·a·tive, adjective
Seems pretty clear to me that to change from a sculpture to a photograph to a stamp meets the definition of changing in form, and that adding the snow meets the definition of changing in appearance. But I guess that common sense and plain language are not compatible with the law.
So if an artist is played in a shop, but the collection society isn't paid, then:
1. The artist gets free advertising
2. the shop gets a "better ambieance" and draws more customers
3. the collection society gets nothing
This, of course, cannot be good for Society as a whole, people are making money and the old legacy players aren't getting anything, oh No!
Disney absolutely undersatands and uses the branding concept. Look at Hannah Montana / Miley Cyrus. You cannot walk through a mall, Wal-Mart or Target store without seeing her face or products. Disney has understood the multiple stream monetizing for a long long time. I guess that they see copyright as the same type of thing, yet another stream, and they are trying to lock it up too?
Missed the Point again TAM. She does not expect the world to change for her, she was compare/contrast two different types of agreements with two different middlemen. One had a non exclusive agreement and did great things. The other had an exclusive agreement (monopoly) and sabotaged her work in the long term for a short term gain. Merely pointing out the benefits of non-exclusive agreements
But, he did make the point. when the kindle reaches it's end of life, what if the successor device is from google and doesn't support kindle content? With my non-DRM ebooks that's not an issue. I just port them over to the new device. Therefore for some of those books that I like, I will have to buy them again if I use the Kindle
Except, where do you publicly post it? At the location of the server farm in southern California, the Site owners offices in Chicago, or the anonymous posters location in Charleston South Carolina? I mean, in the internet age where we have things like jury shopping for patent lawsuits in east Texas and libel tourism in the UK, why not Public Posting in the Lower Antilles. Hey, it's publicly posted right?
While Mike is correct, that Google is only good at looking at yesterday, that is not to say it is worthless. Google is absolutely great at what it does-search. I don't know how it works but I do know that for approx 18 out of 20 searches, Google comes up with what I want the first time, usually within the first five listings. Nobody does it better. And the two out of twenty are usually because I phrased it badly or used incorrect terminology. Also, Google gives you access to so much information so easily, it's like having the entire reference section of a major municipal library just a click away....HMMM...Nope, even better. IMHO there has never been any other resource that has been such a benefit to human knowledge and learning and helped so many people. It is mind-boggling. I know that there are other search engines, and others that were first or faster or easier or whatever, but come on, Google is a verb now as in "I googled that." we don't say "I Binged that" or "I yahooed that." so, to some up my after midnight rant-Google may not be everything, but for what they do, they are the best.