The issues with IT inefficiency generally comes in two flavors:
Tactics without Strategy
Strategy without Tactics
Unless you have a plan to overcome whichever problem applies to your company, in-sourcing or out-sourcing doesn't matter.
People who claim that outsourcing can never work and is always more effective are basically saying that they can't manage vendors. It's the execution that's the issue.
Some organizations are better at the execution than others and that plays in the CBA.
In other cases, corporate IT has become so large, opaque, entrenched with fiefdoms that outsourcing is the fastest way to break up the old empires and remove the entrenched people who will only slow down rapid changes.
Other arguments against outsourcing lack perspective. I'm sure we've all seen poor corporate help desk who think they have the monopoly on their services. They don't realize that they have to compete to satisfy their users otherwise someone will start looking at their costs and what they provide. There are certainly cases where IT departments has put themselves out of a job for not being competitive.
These perspectives come mainly from very large corporations with large IT shops.
Being in corporate IT for 10+ years I agree with a lot of thoughts already presented. When I read Techdirt and read about the sense of "entitlement" - I always think of corporate IT. Specifically companies that have been profitable and haven't had to restructure yet. You'd think that after the dot.com busts that this would have already been crushed. But, this doesnt seem to be the case in a lot of places.
One of miseries some have in working in IT is that the feifdoms getting destroyed and easy rides being shut down. Yes, there will be a lot of people who have examples of Help Desks that are awesome. But, there are still help desks out there that can take a week to get back to you and think this is a fine level of service. Once budget factors start forcing people to outsource, they suddenly have to learn that they aren't competitive on a service or price level. A lot of times they blame the consultants coming for working for pennies and claiming they can never offer the same service; as if their present level of service was good.
"nope, the other 9 love the music, they are just smart enough not to pay for it. They have already figured out that the value of the music is higher than what they are paying as the market price, which is zero."
So you're an idiot if you buy the product and a thief if you don't. Great consumer options in the music marketplace...
no simple way for an artist to support themselves as an artist
Oh, they need a simple way. When did anyone get an entitlement to simply making money doing whatever they wanted (musician, painters, horse manure shoveler)?
Aside from that point, when was it ever simple for most artists to make money and support themselves with music? Haven't artists always had day jobs? Isn't the struggling, starving artist an archetype?
It is sad to think that all of music will no longer be about making music
Interesting comment. Haven't 'true fans' been bitching about artists "selling out" forever? When did we cross this magical line of making music for the sake of making music? And if that was the case, why are people always bitching about money and not the quality of music the industry is producing?
I value the music way more than I value the trinkets
It seems the market does not value music at the same level you do.
as the rights holder is deciding what is out there, not the viewers themselves.
And this is the attitude that is wrong. You can't force people to something int he format the rights holders want and the consumer doesn't prefer. You'd be better off figuring out how to get it into the format and timing they want.
I'm not sure of any business model that can willfully ignore consumer demand and I have little sympathy for such businesses complaining they can't make a good profit.