So the solution for someone that doesn't want to pay for cable is get new friends?
And wouldn't it be nice to discuss it with your friends, rather than avoid a conversation that they all might like to talk about? The social value is the impetus behind a lot of television's popularity.
The point here is that restricting access to content only drives more piracy. People who want to watch it but can't will find a way, and wouldn't it be better for HBO offered a way where they made some income. A lot of people would be happy to pay, but not at the price of getting HBO.
Netflix has current stuff, but it doesn't have much major Hollywood blockbuster stuff - which is what most people want to see because Hollywood has convinced them that it's somehow important to see it.
I'm perfectly happy browsing through the hundreds of movies in my Netflix queue and there's a vast wide world of movies out there to explore.
This is why I don't understand why the studios haven't gone whole hog for Netflix. If they stop putting movies on disc and just stream them they can have complete control over distribution. No more used market, less piracy, and say over who gets their content and who doesn't. You'd think that would be the ideal scenario for them.
They didn't need to change the public's opinion. Dotcom did that himself. If anything, the MPAA has turned him into a hero by playing the big faceless corporate super villain. It's almost like they don't watch their own movies.
So what you're saying is they do it or they don't, but they're dead either way.
It doesn't matter that they're forced to do this - it will turn lots of people away from using Youtube to using other services. Either that or face a class action lawsuit from users for taking down fair use videos (or just as bad - redirecting revenue to copyright holders for fair use videos).
As long as Youtube automatically makes changes a video someone uploads without their permission, their system is compromised. It cannot recognize fair use, and should not assume otherwise.
Proofreading, layout, and database indexing, none of which should cost $20,000 unless they're doing it all for customer.
The only thing these journals have to offer to make it worth more is their prestige, and only because it's recognized in the academic community that getting published by one of these journals makes you important enough to justify your $200K income.
It has nothing to do with that actual cost of making this research available to the public, which is next to nothing and can be included as part of the grant to the researcher (and sometimes is as part of a publishing fee).