I may have mentioned this before in another article, but here's my experience with ads:
Years ago, I used Yahoo Mail on IE. Okay, I was young and I didn't know any better. ;) Anyway, as with any website, Yahoo Mail had banner ads, most of which were flashing, annoying and irrelevant. - No, I do not want to refinance my house at 2% interest since I'm living in an apartment. - No, I won't click on a banner that says I won a prize for being the 1 millionth person to see the banner ad. - No, I don't want free "smilies" or animated cursors. - No, I don't want to click to impeach the president or tell Congress to take a hike.
Then one day, my computer was hit by malware: First, Windows asked if I wanted a software program to change the registry. Then my firewall software asked if I wanted some program to access the internet. Then Windows asked about changing the registry as fast as I could click No. I had to unplug the computer to get the crap to stop... and when I turned my computer back on, my desktop wallpaper had been replaced by a black screen with an IP address on it. My Start Menu was also full of crap, such as search engines, tool bar installers, affiliate-clicks programs, and more. Luckily, I was able to restart in Safe Mode and do a System Restore.
And of course, Yahoo denied it was their fault, even though it happened when I was reading mail.
I then switched to GMail and the ad-experience was completely different. Now, ads were on the side of the e-mail I was reading... and they were relevant! When I talked to my friend about a Star Wars movie, the ad were for Star Wars toys... which I clicked on... and actually bought some things.
So, what's the moral for advertisers? Force crappy banner ads on people and they'll never click. But give them ads relevant to them and they'll click and maybe buy.
When does a prop become it's own character? You could claim that the Doctor couldn't get out of a jam without the sonic screwdriver. And if the Golden Snitch flies around on its own, how is it any different than R2-D2?
However, I think the real issue is that the guy was making replicas without official permission from DC Comics, so they sued with any laws they could think of.
Like a good magician, these copyright groups are becoming very good as misdirection: they're getting everyone in a froth over cam-cording, yet there's no "market" for poor quality movies like this. On the other hand (that they don't want you to see) are the 1080i Blu-Ray versions giving out to critics and screeners, which somehow end up on the torrent sites.
So, it's better to blame cam-corders instead of coming down on screeners and friends of the studio.
In all the lawyer TV shows I've been watching, the characters talk about how the plaintiff needs to have "standing". 1) How can PETA sue on behalf of a monkey over a copyright issue? I can understand suing on behalf of an animal over mistreatment, but not giving a monkey proper copyright isn't abusing an animal.
2) How can they file a lawsuit in a California court when the photo shoot took place in Indonesia? How does the US or California have jurisdiction?
Also, if they're suing on behalf of a monkey in Indonesia, how do Indonesia's copyright laws come into it?
3) And even if they win (which is a stretch) how exactly will the winnings help the monkey? Like the other poster said, will PETA go to Indonesia and help fund the monkey's park?
And who's up for waiting a few years for research, development, and FDA approval?
And then what happens when this guy finds out another company is about to release their version of the drug for $30? Oh, look, he's suddenly being big-hearted and pricing his own drug for $20, which once again, undercuts the competition... which is basically what the drug has been doing for the past 50 years.
Or alternatively, this guy could be even more of a jerk and find a price point that's still high for patients, but too low to make it un-profitable for other drug companies to make a competing drug. And even then, how long will it take for a competitor to make their own drug- 2 or 3 years or longer? In the meantime, the guy enjoys the monopoly the previous company created by selling the drug for such a low price.
The same thing happens to gas prices: Starting price: $2.00 a gallon. Then prices go to up to $2.50 because of "reasons". People complain. Then the gas companies "bow to public pressure" and reduce the price to $2.25. People rejoice because they "won" because they got the big gas company to lower the price.
Yet the price is still higher than it was before this started. Sure, it's not as high, but the company is still making more money.
If Warner/ Chappell doesn't own the copyright, can the court order them to issue refunds to everyone they charged for licenses to play the song? Doesn't this drive home the fact that the $2 million they collect each year is fraudulent?
I think more attention needs to be given to the "low cost" option. If the company is willing to charge $750 per pill, they're not going to give away free samples out of the goodness of their heart. Someone, somewhere, will be paying for this- if it's not the patient, it'll be the health insurance company... who will then pass this cost on to *all* their patients.
Remember that insurance companies are in business to make money also, and their options for covering expenses like this are more limited since they can't legally drop people for having an expensive sickness.
I forget which TV show or movie had a pharm executive as a bad guy, but the point was basically this: pharm companies don't want to cure customers (I mean "patients") since this will end the income stream. Instead, pharm companies sell drugs to counter the side effects and get people legally hooked.
And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there's probably a reason why pharm companies haven't found a cure for cancer or AIDS.
Now, granted, the show was a fictional drama, but it seems a little too accurate.
I don't know if I missed this, but was the bomb squad or SWAT team ever called to verify and disarm the "bomb"? If not, then how is it a "hoax" when it was never a bomb in the first place? Oh, right, it's for the same reason that TSA won't let people take a bottle of water through security- it might be a bomb also... so just pitch your "bomb" into that trash can.
So, yes, as the other posters are saying, the kid was walked out in handcuffs because he wasn't "confessing" to the police's already-established narrative that he made a bomb.
So both have been bullied into accepting a plea bargain, which is a perversion of justice and due process.
Have you watched any TV shows like "Law & Order"? If the real prosecutor is anything like the ones on the TV shows, then these kids were probably threatened with a jury trial where there would be the very real possibility of them going to jail for 20 years and being put on the sexual offender registry. Okay, sure, this probably won't happen, but why take the chance when they can get a punishment without jail time and without being put on the registry?
Or maybe there was financial incentive: maybe the prosecutor said it would cost another $20,000 (or more) to take this case to trial and the families just wanted to be done with it.
The first way to fix this mess is to shut down the troll companies and their automated takedown systems. There are way too many examples of companies sending out takedown notices to see what will stick, whether it's correct or not. You know, like how a troll company for HBO sent a takedown notice to HBO.com for streaming "Game of Thrones".
Or how about stronger punishments for false claims? I hope 2600 sues Getty for this shakedown.
And why was health insurance added as a benefit to workers? Okay, I can see why companies would want to keep their employees healthy, but why not pay for auto insurance so employees could get to work on time or "food insurance" to make sure employees eat properly.
Then, over time, hospitals figured out that they could change more money care because it was covered by a company's insurance. Then combine this with the fact that hospitals basically have a monopoly on their services, and there's no reason to keep costs down.
Also, as an aside, has anyone wondered how a "non profit" hospital can afford to pay millions for a CEO or a new wing for the building? Hint: "non profit" simply means "spend all the money so there's no profit, even if that means giving anything that's left over to the CEO".
How's this for a selling point: "Sure, you may want award-winning actors and actresses, like those found in The Hunger Games and Wolf of Wall Street, but we have something better: the actor behind the laugh-out-loud movie, Pixels. And remember, Pixels wasn't the worst-rated movie of the summer."