I think you are spot on. This isn't just a pure pricing scheme at work, there is an emotional factor working too and that is perfectly OK. It might mean that it won't scale up very well, but at other levels, perhaps other methods & incentives would work.
It is important to understand that PACER is actually a reaction to something and not just some crazy scheme dreamed up by the government to make our lives more difficult.
1. Any information available in PACER is available for free if you go down to your courthouse. Yes you have to pay for copies, but where is that not the case? Also, just to look at documents is free.
2. PACER was developed as a reaction to the complaints of lawyers who were tired of paying people to go down to the courthouse and research stuff. This used to be a thriving small business for some. Now PACER lets the lawyers do it online and the charge is negligible when compared to the old way.
3. The price for PACER might seem high but if you spend less than $10 a year, they don't even charge you.
4. They've capped the prices at 30 pages max, so, for example, if you want a 30 page document it is $2.40. If you want a 50 page document it is $2.40.
5. Attorneys of record and parties in a case can get one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, in most cases.
6. Individual researchers associated with educational institutions and section 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations, among others, can be exempted from these fees.
7. Congress directed the judiciary to charge for the service and sets the fees.
What all this means is that the system actually tries really hard to do what it is supposed to -- make it easy for people who need the information to get it while making it hard for those who don't. Those who don't include data miners and crazy people with stalking (or worse) in mind. That is not groundless scare-mongering. My wife works in the bankruptcy court system and has seen instances of both.
Re: Copyright as a Whole or Copyright on the Margins
What the hell? Are you reading as you type? The government has given itself the power to grant the monopoly. Mike and many others are suggesting that maybe the government might want to look at that. Maybe copyrights don't need to be such strong monopolies. Maybe they don't need to last as long. Maybe if our Congress people substituted the word "monopoly" for the word "copyright" they might understand why letting someone take a creative work out of play for ever-increasing periods of time is not the best idea. It's not like "analysis" means shoot someone in the face. Analysis is simply giving something a long hard look. That's a good thing and something no one seems to have done in a while.
It doesn't fall apart, it just means that the games you mention are the only ones developed by people looking to make money the way they know how to make it now. That's business.
To be truthful it seems like that's where all the games are going now anyway. Sad for me the non-multi-player gamer, but they cancel all the damn TV shows I like too, so I'm used to it.
However, at some point game companies will realize how tough the competition in the above-mentioned fields is getting and look at other options. They will conclude that if they are willing to accept lower profits they can have a real competitive edge over other companies (for a little while) and single player games will come back. Yay for me.
Considering it further though, you don't seem to understand the concept completely. To a certain extent, a game isn't just a game any more. It can also be books based on the game, movies or cartoons based on the game, ancillary materials (guidebooks, extra levels, etc.) based on the game, the list goes on. What technology is bringing us is a future where everything is content and what the savvy businessperson realizes is that everything can be leveraged with or for something else. Profit potential is everywhere, you just have to look at it right.
Actually what has been said here is that pretty much everything is content. And good ads are viewed as content. Lots of us are not watching the Super Bowl for the football.
Also, you kind of lost your point when you said "Had they been, you wouldn't have placed the "Now a word from our sponsors" text to specifically distinguish them." That's why magazines label things as advertising section, because in some cases, you can't tell the difference. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it is the truth.
And your last point doesn't even make sense. An ad is content. Hell, I'd say a fair portion of crap on youtube is funny commercials, music videos, etc. That stuff is all ads, but ta-da, it is also content.
The difference here, the actual point of this post, is that we seek out those ads. Putting ads where we don't like them is not going to benefit you.
I think you're right that this constitutes reasonable use, but I also think that the person above is right too. More and more, people see a logo and think, "Ooh, product placement." That isn't necessarily right, but I think it is more prevalent than ever before.
In that case, the university is right to be a little concerned. Despite what is right, this is what is perceived.
You also say "If you needed to get approval of every brand ever used in your TV show, no TV shows would ever get produced." and I think that's true too and is why on a lot of cable shows you see everything under the sun blurred out or taped over. And don't get me started on the background music...
The Internet is all about serendipity. Don't get me wrong, I love all my libraries. I've got three I visit on a regular basis and I use the online system to request books that I see on the Internet that I'm too cheap to buy.
However, sites like popurls, Digg, Slashdot and Metafilter regularly led me down very weird paths full of new learning and the best part is I can just bookmark it and come back to it later. I never have to return the link like a library book.
Also, nothing against real books, but 1 thumb drive holds about a bazillion books. I like the feel of a real book in my hands, but since I don't own a secret underground lair, my bookshelf space is very limited.
It's not that they are trying to get any money. They want the judgment to stand. If it goes on the books as a judgment of a kabillion dollars, no one reads the part about settling for $3500. The kabillion dollar judgment is what counts and what they'll use to scare college kids and grandmas with.
Also, it's not theft. Not now, not ever. They want you to think it is, just like they want you to think that she got punished for downloading music. Neither are true.
Seems to have helped New Albany, Clarksville and Jeffersontown Indiana. Also where ever the hell it is that Belterra is located (Rising Sun, I think).
Horse racing helped make Louisville, KY and we're no more degraded than your average mid-sized city.
But to consider your point as if it were valid, legalizing gambling is often a symptom of greater troubles, such as financial trouble or lack of growth. So your particular burg might be a craphole, but it wasn't gambling that made it so.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with betting on whatever you want, if you can find someone to take the action.
I can legally bet on if I'm going to die or get maimed, my home will get burned down, burgled or flooded or if I'm going to get in an auto accident or hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist. And the worst part about all of that is that even if I win, I lose.
The problem with your arguments, beside the fact that they are all wrong in whole or part, is that you probably run a business somewhere that could really benefit from understanding how wrong you are.
1. If enough people do something, it stops being wrong and becomes the norm. Sometimes laws have to change to recognize that and they have. (prohibition, slavery, taxation without representation)
2. People don't want ISPs to protect them because they're whiny, but because it is wrong for a business, not the government, but a business to just demand our information based on a flimsy pretext and expect to get it. If my ISP gives up my info on this lamest of reasons, what else will they give it up for? Perhaps if I say something in a forum someone doesn't like. Perhaps if I try to anonymously organize a little pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Web site and the local church doesn't like it.
3. Like everyone of your ilk, you're missing the point, no one believes everything should be given away, but here's the scoop, it is all for free right now. That's what technology has done. It has made certain things that were once scarce infinite. You can try to protect those infinite goods or you can leverage them to make money on something that is scarce or market your service as superior to free or more secure or more American. If you accept that and try to build based on those rules, the real rules of today, you're going to do a hell of a lot better than trying to sue people into submission. People hate you for those actions. It really doesn't even matter if you are "right" or "wrong." The impression is that your an asshole and no one should buy from you. That's what's called bad press and enough will kill your business.
4.This is all just silliness here. Just because you don't understand what's happening, you don't have to belittle it. I'm a mature and ethically developed person and I've been working since I was 12 years old. I've worked for businesses of all sizes and I have seen that the Internet has changed every single one of them. I was privileged to help some of these businesses re-tool to take advantage of that. If the movie & music industry re-tooled, if they recognized that this is a brand new game, then everyone could be a winner. Even you.
I actually think this is an excellent point and wonder what would happen if some African Americans formed the American N***** Party or Homosexual activists formed some equally problematically named party.
I mean party members could say the name with impunity, but how would newscasters report on them? How would their names show up on ballots?
If I purchase such a device I am not giving up my right to privacy. I am purchasing that device so that I and that company (to the extent that I allow them to) can use that data to provide me with a service or product.
That does not mean that the government or anyone else has automatically been given any rights to my info. The two are not equal.
You folks forget that everyone else is perusing this in a comic book store where the cover is at least 11 inches tall. "And the" is quite clear. Also, the story isn't half bad and has nothing whatsoever to do with music or musicians. Just lots of shooting.
You make it sound like someone dies if they don't make it as a musician. Most musicians start with nothing and even a little something works out pretty well. Lesser known musicians are free to fling a lot of sh1t at the wall too, because they don't have anything to lose.