Googling for NIC # 18516 (referenced in the first RFC) brings me to this Which is a dive into state-of-the-net in August 1973. This is a combo text/scan, so it is searchable. Search for "mail" .
Insurance might become moot according to this https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/06/19/1913239/will-self-driving-cars-destroy-the-auto-insurance-industry
In other words, cars must be self-driving before they will be allowed to fly.
Your reasoning about (real, not monetary) value makes total sense to me, but what about the "game"?
As I see it we have three types of actors; creators, distributors and consumers. The old way enabled the distributors to collect huge profits, sharing some with a few select artists. The new way will wipe out the "mega star" and the distributor (concert promoters will still exist though). Will we be able to transition from one to the other, despite what the labels do to stop the change?
The total "utility" for consumers will probably be constant in terms of music-enjoyment, plus some for the added convenience and cheaper access. This is where the labels disagree with me, their only argument is that free copying means stifling creation. Remuneration and sense of success for artists will probably be redistributed both among artists and also away from artists to consumers. The labels will be total losers, consumers the only clear winners.
We as consumers have potential allies in the "marginal" artists. The labels have allies among main-stream mega-sellers., Promising/good but still marginal artists have a good chance of being picked up by a major label and defecting, if the labels can afford to offer a deal.
The "bleeding" of the labels is an autonomous, self perpetuating process. As new DRM schemes are added, someone sits down to break them just because they can. If the breaking happens sufficiently fast to bleed the labels dry, they will have to give in, and settle for a minor role as promoters and managers.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by halsathome.
More prior art
Googling for NIC # 18516 (referenced in the first RFC) brings me to this Which is a dive into state-of-the-net in August 1973. This is a combo text/scan, so it is searchable. Search for "mail" .
Re: Never.
Insurance might become moot according to this https://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/06/19/1913239/will-self-driving-cars-destroy-the-auto-insurance-industry
In other words, cars must be self-driving before they will be allowed to fly.
What about the game?
Your reasoning about (real, not monetary) value makes total sense to me, but what about the "game"?
As I see it we have three types of actors; creators, distributors and consumers. The old way enabled the distributors to collect huge profits, sharing some with a few select artists. The new way will wipe out the "mega star" and the distributor (concert promoters will still exist though). Will we be able to transition from one to the other, despite what the labels do to stop the change?
The total "utility" for consumers will probably be constant in terms of music-enjoyment, plus some for the added convenience and cheaper access. This is where the labels disagree with me, their only argument is that free copying means stifling creation. Remuneration and sense of success for artists will probably be redistributed both among artists and also away from artists to consumers. The labels will be total losers, consumers the only clear winners.
We as consumers have potential allies in the "marginal" artists. The labels have allies among main-stream mega-sellers., Promising/good but still marginal artists have a good chance of being picked up by a major label and defecting, if the labels can afford to offer a deal.
The "bleeding" of the labels is an autonomous, self perpetuating process. As new DRM schemes are added, someone sits down to break them just because they can. If the breaking happens sufficiently fast to bleed the labels dry, they will have to give in, and settle for a minor role as promoters and managers.