Ross Pruden's Favorites Of The Week: Hand Me The Keys (Or I'll Take Them)

from the favorites-of-the-week dept

Sat, Dec 15th 2012 12:00pm — Ross Pruden

This week, Techdirt had a good crop of articles about enablers and gatekeepers. First up is the amazing story of 72 year old music legend Lester Chambers and how his newest chapter is currently being written on Kickstarter. As you may recall, Lester Chambers got screwed by the music industry:

Now 72, Lester is being given a second chance by a new (the original?) group of enablers -- his fans. Chambers' music was popular before I was even born, but Alexis Ohanian has thrown down the gauntlet to prove this kind of thing is possible. After hearing Lester's story, I was moved to pony up $35. Honestly, I don't even know Chambers' music, but that's not really the point; this is mainly about showing all artists (and skeptics) once more that we, the people, are the enablers and that the old gatekeepers don't hold all the keys anymore.

So we skip now from the once somewhat famous to the now insanely famous, Psy, who has made over $8 million despite (or perhaps because of?) copyright infringement. As Gangnam Style has swept the world, I've been wondering if anyone would focus on how much of its success was attributed to its intentionally lax copyright licensing. Psy has happily let others copy his work without explicit permission... which means lots of "copycat" videos have appeared. Granted, some of these videos would be considered fair use because they're parodies, but I'm sure Psy is all too happy to see these videos carry his Gangnam meme as far as possible for as long as possible.

And why would Psy want others to appropriate his meme if it means rife copyright infringement? Because he knows that when his fans copy him, it just adds enormous value to everything else he does. As Glyn summarizes it:

This is yet another great example of how artists can give away copies of their music and videos to build their reputations and then earn significant sums by selling associated scarcities -- in this case, appearances in TV commercials. Now, not every musician may want to take that route, but there are plenty of other ways of exploiting global successes like Gangnam Style -- none of which requires copyright to be enforced.

While we're talking about musicians, we shouldn't forget the short article about Mike Doughty offering unique, personalized songs for a few C notes. Doughty's approach really exemplifies the powers of the CwF + RtB approach; what he's offering is impossible to pirate because he's selling something only he can create, and he only gets paid for work completed. Who, you ask, would bother paying $543 for a personalized song? If you're a "True Fan" of Doughty's work, $543 starts to sound like a real bargain.

I loved the post about Techdirt's eBook results, People Will Pay To Support Creators, Even When Free Is An Option. Its infographic really proves how fans will still pay even when they don't have to, which is a middle finger to anyone who thinks "giving it away" is insane nonsense. As we all know, offering up digital content has zero operating costs, so it costs nothing to let others have it for free. However, if you frame it just the right way and market it to the right people, fans will gladly buy it. I know this is true from personal experience: when the Approaching Infinity eBook was offered for "$0+", what struck me was how the default option was pre-set at $5. If I really wanted to pay nothing for it, I could have purposefully selected $0... but that'd make me feel somewhat petty. Which I think was the point. Is it a coincidence that $5 is the most commonly paid price? I think not.

As a side note, the Approaching Infinity eBook is available for free on the Techdirt web site as a series of posts, but I own a copy of the book because I prefer to read it in that format. When I heard the eBook was available for free, I actually went to the site to download it for free... (N.B. technically, this wouldn't be considered a lost sale since I'd already paid for the book once) but then bought it anyway as a small way of saying thank you to Techdirt!

One of my favorite pieces this week was Belgian Newspapers Agree To Drop Lawsuit Over Google News After Google Promises To Show Them How To Make Money Online. I have to confess to having a viscous streak when it comes to seeing European newspapers disrupted. Really, no pity is in my heart for outdated newspapers refusing to acknowledge legitimate new revenue sources in the changing market, so I have to suppress mischievous glee when I read how "Belgian newspapers sued Google for sending them traffic..." and then "Google removed those newspapers from its index, leading the newspapers to freak out and demand to be put back in." Notwithstanding this article's hilarious headline, maybe Google should update its business model to offer continuing ed courses to teach legacy businesses how to make money in the new age.

Another favorite was the article about the nature of disruptive innovation. It's a fave because of its incredibly useful chart showing how many products and services have been rendered obsolete by smartphones:

What struck me is the 8mm camera being replaced by a smartphone's camera. I was reminded of this when a filmmaker friend neglected to dig out his swanky $2000 Canon 7D for his daughter's birthday party because his smartphone shooting 1080p was "good enough", a refrain we often hear about new products or services competing with legacy value propositions.

But making an 8mm camera obsolete only scratches the surface: there's a fantastic 8mm iPhone app with lots of cool filters akin to Instagram that simulate many different kinds of lenses and types of film. You can also edit all that footage on your phone (no need for an expensive flatbed editing bay). There's a hell of a lot you can do with smartphone video now, and every month some new cool features emerge that make it even easier to shoot killer home videos.

My father once told me, "All doctors are basically working themselves out of a job." In that simple statement, he was stating the paradox of intrinsic obsolescence. You provide a product or a service to meet a need, but provide too much of it, then you meet the need so much that you're out of a job (e.g., Instapaper, which has hit a plateau in its customer base). If doctors did cure all diseases, there'd be no need for doctors anymore. So their stated goal -- eliminate all disease -- is in fact not in their own best interests. Obviously, this isn't ever a pressing issue because the rate at which doctors eliminate diseases is slow enough not to matter to them.

The rest of the world should be so lucky. Many businesses today are being rendered obsolete so swiftly that they barely have time to adapt. While it's very sad for those businesses which employed hundreds or thousands, the end result is indisputably better for the rest of the world:

Disruptive innovation, by its nature, destroys entire industries or segments of industries by making them obsolete. If you simply measure the economic impact on the fact that those industries are no longer present, or that those products are no longer being sold for hundreds of dollars, you could argue that there's a negative impact on the economy. But, if you flip it around and look at (a) how much better our lives are, in that we have access to all that at the touch of our finger tips in a single smartphone, and (b) that as compared to buying all those other devices, individuals actually get to keep more money to themselves (though, not necessarily in their now obsolete wallets) to be spent in more productive ways, it seems like it's actually a really good thing.

Put another way, don't be sad for the people put out of a job making and selling telephones, cameras, thermometers, dictionaries, alarm clocks, et al. -- be happy all those gadgets are now on one device that fits in your pocket because all those people are out of work. Yes, they're out of work, that's terrible, etc. but they're out of a job because they were making products nobody wanted anymore. Do we really want people still producing expensive and unnecessary crap? Nobody rushes to bail out those put out of work compiling the Encyclopedia Britanica, right?

And finally, a great post about The Old Enablers Becoming New Gatekeepers. Mike's distinction between the enabler and gatekeeper is a vital one: all middlemen are enablers, and creators will always need enablers. However, most of the enablers we've ever known have been gatekeepers because the costs to create and distribute content have historically been so large that individual creators couldn't afford to do a middleman's job on their own and the middleman had to prioritize creators according to which creators were better financial investments. For the ones that got left behind, those middlemen weren't enablers, but gatekeepers. Yet, with the rise of the internet, the costs of creation and distribution have dropped to zero which has also nerfed the power of the old gatekeepers along with it. So now we see these zero-cost enablers like Twitter and Instagram and Facebook and Kickstarter and Etsy helping empower users by promoting their brand and distributing their wares.

The new trend we see is that these enablers are starting to lock down their offerings in an attempt to make more money in the short term:

It seems like some of the big "clashes" we've been seeing in the tech/web world lately are along those lines. Lots of people have talked about Instagram and Twitter fighting with each other, which is just the latest in a series of "fights" among hot web companies blocking each other. Considering that many of these companies grew up on a web 2.0 ethos of openness and sharing -- and we're now watching them get more locked down, proprietary and limiting -- it seems obvious that some of these companies are moving along the spectrum from enabler to gatekeeper.

Here's the insight that really made this whole article worthwhile:

We shouldn't necessarily fear the new gatekeepers, mainly because a gatekeeper business model, while lucrative in the short-term, is unsustainable in the long term. Companies, which move along that chain chasing the easy money, need to learn that they do so at their own peril. Becoming a gatekeeper merely opens up massive opportunity for a new enabler to disrupt you. That's a lesson that too many companies learn way too late.

So it goes. Gatekeepers lock down the industry. Enablers show up, destroy the industry, and refashion it. Then, over time, the old enablers become the new gatekeepers... until newer enablers show up and the cycle begins anew. One would expect this kind of deep "ethos overhaul" to only happen in older companies like Kodak or Coke where a newer generation of management is unfettered by the previous generation's conceptions of how the company should be run, but it seems even relatively young companies like Twitter and Instagram aren't immune to shifting their focus toward short term profits at the expense of long-term pain.

The only long-term sustainable solution is to remember at all times that the value your company provides isn't in weeding out creators whose work isn't worthy of making you money, but in helping all creators make their dreams come true. Get too snobby and someone else will be only too happy to take your customers. Maybe all of them.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Devonavar (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 1:15pm

a viscous streak?
A viscous streak? Do you drink motor oil with your morning coffee?

Sorry, the typo was too funny to pass over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rosspruden (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 1:30pm

Typo. Errrr...
Heh. You got me! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 1:42pm

" was reminded of this when a filmmaker friend neglected to dig out his swanky $2000 Canon 7D for his daughter's birthday party because his smartphone shooting 1080p was "good enough","

I don't want to insult your friend, but...there is no way a smartphone and a 7D have the same quality when shooting footage, even if both are at 1080p. You've got to think of things like ISO control, white balancing, lighting, aperture, etc. Last I checked, smartphones don't have them (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm just an amateur at photography, but even I know that if you've got an important event to be filmed/photographed, you ALWAYS choose the expensive DSLR over the relatively cheap smartphone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  It all depends on objectives, including do you want to be a photographer or dad at the party. If the objective is to capture 'natural' behavior the the smart phone will work better, that is be ignored, where an obvious camera is likely to provoke playing to the camera.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rosspruden (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:09pm
  
  Re:
  Rikuo, good points, but consider:
  
  1. Is a $2000 Canon 7D DSLR clearly superior in capturing images over a smartphone? Undeniably, yes.
  
  2. Does that distinction matter to most people... even film people? Not really. If that distinction does matter, it won't matter for much longer because the rate at which smartphones improve is much faster than the rate Canon 7Ds can improve.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Does that distinction matter to most people... even film people? Not really. If that distinction does matter, it won't matter for much longer because the rate at which smartphones improve is much faster than the rate Canon 7Ds can improve.
    
    Not all aspects of the difference between the DSLR and the smartphone are susceptible to the kind of improvement that can be made with the phone. The same is true with many devices. There are certain irreducible physical aspects that require a physically specialised device - but hey - the good news is that every device can now be every other device. So for the keen film type his DSLR may also be his phone etc etc etc. Someone else might well choose to have all the smart functionality built into (say) a radio control transmitter or a fishing rod or...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rosspruden (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Excellent point, Richard. Upvote for insight!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:42pm
  
  Re:
  Youtube: Weapons of Mass Production - iPhone 5 Review, Camera Comparison: Nikon DSLR and Hasselblad - WOMP
  
  WARNING!
  NSFW, it contains brief moments with models in underwear and copious amounts of cussing.
  
  This may or may not help the discussion, it is a humorous comparison about the strengths and weakness of a phone camera against high end equipment.
  
  Now if you want some advantages for a phone camera here is one reason.
  
  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andyrawson/ir-blue-thermal-imaging-smartphone-accesso ry?ref=card
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 1:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well after watching that I'm 100 percent sure the Nikon DSLR is the stalkers weapon of choice. "I mean camera :P"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re:
  "...there is no way a smartphone and a 7D have the same quality when shooting footage, even if both are at 1080p."
  
  And nobody claimed they do. What he said was that the phone camera was "good enough" for what he was doing at the time. The important point is that phone cameras have reached the point where they're not only a viable option to a 'real' camera but in many situations the better option.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 2:42pm

Here is what happens when you treat fans like crap:

Youtube: SEGA STOP THIS! by HappyConsoleGamer on Dec 5, 2012

views: 27,272

A comment from that video:

Quote:
Xxdeathfromabove1xX 5 days ago
SEGA= S.elf-aware E.ntertainment G.one A.pe-shit.

Result of Sega DMCA'ing its fans?
Priceless bad publicity with thousands cussing Sega to the end of times.

It is what people call in the law trade "irreparable damaged".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 4:25pm

If there was ever a reason to say that I love smartphones and the way the industry has changed things...it's this. I cannot and will not knock Apple's implementation of the camera. It's been on smart phones for ages, it may not be the best, but it's amazing the amount of portability the iPhone brought to the mix.

I think the diagram sort of makes me sad and yet glad that technology can be embraced, yet again, as an art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  "If there was ever a reason to say that I love smartphones and the way the industry has changed things...it's this. I cannot and will not knock Apple's implementation of the camera. It's been on smart phones for ages, it may not be the best, but it's amazing the amount of portability the iPhone brought to the mix."
  
  I'll grant you that, but while it created the smartphone craze, it's certainly fallen by the way side. By this I mean, I can and will knock the iPhone's/Apple's implementation of the camera, namely because it has been surpassed in both quality and usability by offerings from a variety of other manufacturers.
  
  Apple's truly lost their ability to innovate and the more they try to do things on their own the more they seem to be slipping. Maps anyone?
  
  http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/12/3760770/google-maps-iphone-available-features-navigati on-transit
  
  Praise on Google's Maps app on iOS from The Verge? Now I know the world is coming to an end. There's no great Apple fans than The Verge (well... as far as people who review tech and have opinions that really matter that is, and can show non-bias).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 10:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    The iPhone does currently carry one of the most powerful GPU's. And after the Apple Maps disaster, I'm glad Google Maps is available again. One gripe I have is that after December, your E-Mail apps won't sync with Google Mail and you'll have to either download the app (which crashes every few minutes), or painstakingly set it up with the new standards.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 10:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, your email apps will sync up with Google mail. albeit using a new and more popular standard, CalDav.
      
      As for the app, well that might just be you. Seeing as how after doing a Google search, as well as scouring numerous tech sites, I have found no mention of the Gmail app crashing. Seriously. Although I have seen complaints that the new Gmail app on iOS devices isn't quite up to par with the Android version. Then again, it wouldn't be, but it may become so over time.
      
      As for "painstakingly set it up with the new standards"...
      
      https://support.google.com/calendar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=151674
      
      5 steps involved there. Then again that is for syncing Calendar. How about contacts?
      
      https://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2753077&topic=21369& amp;ctx=topic
      
      Hmm. 6 steps involved there. All quite "painstaking". [rolls eyes]
      
      But of course we were discussing Gmail, right?
      
      So how about syncing that using the not so new internet standard?
      
      Well, let me quote a quick piece.
      
      "Step 1) On your iOS device, go to Settings > Mail, Contacts, Calendars > Add Account... > Other > Add CardDAV Account
      
      Step 2) Enter in your information for your account. The server you should use is "google.com", your username is your entire email address including the @gmail.com part. Your password fills the password field, unless you use 2-step verification, in which case you must use an application specific password.
      
      Step 3) Click Next and it should verify your information and set up CardDAV for you."
      
      If you call those 3 steps "painstaking" then you've got more issues than we have time to get into right now. Starting with how did you manage to turn on your computer. Pushing a button and logging into your machine (assuming you have a password) is so painstaking. /s
      
      Now, you were saying? Would you like me to give you my number? That way you can call me and I can just go ahead and walk you through/hold your hand while we get everything set up (Google-wise) on your iOS device(s). Since it's so difficult and all. /s
      
      As for that bit about the most powerful GPU, I fail to see it's relevance. More powerful chips DO NOT a better device make. 1.2 GHz, 1.5 GHz, etc. are all just numbers that at the end of the day are quite meaningless. Hardware can be as top of the line as you'd like, but without the software running smoothly that powerful chip won't do you much good. There are quite a few Android based smartphones that have quad core chips in them, all 1.5 GHZ+. So I suppose if we're going to mention the iPhone having "one of the most powerful GPUs" we should mention that too, right? Fair is fair after all, don't you think? Does that automatically make them better? No, right? So why mention it at all beyond just trying to see who has a bigger e-peen/chip peen? It's irrelevant and adds nothing of substance to the conversation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 3:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well lets see...all you had to do to sync to Google before CalDv standard on the iPhone was just use your user name and password :-)
        
        "The iPhone does currently carry one of the most powerful GPU's." was the first sentence in my rebuttal...
        
        You fail to notice that the simple method of syncing is a 3 step process....enter user name, enter password, and verify... CalDv needs to be set up manually and isn't automatic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You fail to notice that the simple method of syncing is a 3 step process....enter user name, enter password, and verify... CalDv needs to be set up manually and isn't automatic."
        
        And manually involves EXACTLY those same three things (plus one or two more steps). It's not painstaking in any way. Unless you are an idiot and/or think entering the information "google.com" (one of the additional steps) is difficult.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 6:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Don't fight children use OpenSync
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2012 @ 5:22pm

Someone cannot become a new 'enabler', if they're sued into bankruptcy for patent infringement by the old gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 8:17pm

*cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
o_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rosspruden (profile), 15 Dec 2012 @ 10:04pm
  
  Re: *cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
  Your cookie call has been duly noted, sir! I owe you some stories, yes? :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 2:13am
    
    Re: Re: *cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
    some stories and other things.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - rosspruden (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: *cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
      Wow, is that ever an understatement. :P
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: *cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
        I am well known for being subtle.
        :D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cookie Monster (that's Cookie with a capital N), 16 Dec 2012 @ 11:54am
  
  Re: *cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
  Me did it all for the cookie.
  C'mon.
  The cookie.
  C'mon.
  The cookie!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 1:32pm
    
    Re: Re: *cracks whip* COOOOOOKIES
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qTIGg3I5y8
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Ben, 16 Dec 2012 @ 2:20am

Technology Is Here to Stay
People are in love with technology and want more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KJ (profile), 16 Dec 2012 @ 3:08am

If doctors did cure all diseases, there'd be no need for doctors anymore.

That's not completely true. As long as people stay stupid or clumsy, there will always be a need for doctors. People hurt themselves all the time, and we need doctors to put them back together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Daryl, 16 Dec 2012 @ 3:37am

I'm gonna file this under WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 6:47am
  
  Re:
  I'm going to file that comment under REGULAR TD ASSTARDIAN TROLL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 1:27pm

How open source could lend you a job.

http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=2686

Bunnie is building his own laptop from scratch, he probably do what others are doing and using Kickstarter to fund a commercial product of his own and making open source he is inviting other hardware designers to improve and profit from it if they so choose to do so.

How many people are out of job in the US that could be designing, improving and selling something to others?

You don't need to wait for the government to help you or wait for companies to hire you, you could be doing something and creating your own business.

This is what I like about open source the R&D is global, but the benefits are localized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:47am
  
  Re:
  I saw people saying they would support a Kickstarter to get one, but I had not seen a comment from Bunnie yet on that topic.
  
  You can make your own as he is freely sharing the plans, its open at its best. Here is a great idea if you can make it better, do it and tell me how. Improve it for everyone.
  
  It appears his main goal was create the most open laptop ever.
  Making sure there was *IX support without arcane sacrifices of goats to make stuff work. There are a couple supersecret blobs, simply because there is no competition for those items. Maybe seeing the success of an open laptop could make the market change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Dec 2012 @ 1:28pm

I forgot, that can only happen if things are open, and monopolies are a threat to that hope for better days for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad (profile), 17 Dec 2012 @ 2:47am

But are doctors trying to cure diseases?
So their [doctor's] stated goal -- eliminate all disease -- is in fact not in their own best interests. Obviously, this isn't ever a pressing issue because the rate at which doctors eliminate diseases is slow enough not to matter to them.

And you don't feel the need to question why they are curing disease so slowly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 5:06am
  
  Re: But are doctors trying to cure diseases?
  I would say that the real problem is the pharmaceutical companies, for while doctors have a role in treating injury, and encouraging healthy living. The pharmaceutical companies thrive when a drug controls symptoms, as this leads to a lifetime dependency.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Dec 2012 @ 8:13am

Re: But are doctors trying to cure diseases?
The last doctors I subjected myself to were trying to inflict palliatives on me, not cures. The same with the pharmaceutical companies. The 'health care' business is about selling "feel good now", not cures. As such they will not cure anything and never go out of business. BTW, aren't the illicit drug dealers also selling "feel good now"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]