You're correct that various "wardrobe malfunctions" are in high demand, however may I point out that:
-there's a specific Internet sector servicing this at a higher resolution and extent
-Super Bowl ads have little to do with Google (other than surfacing some time later on youtube)

Can you elaborate on society's demand for ads?

Then you'll see only the same old built-in ads forever.

Why do these companies repeatedly store only *some* of my personal information encrypted?

Because cowboy attitude. We just had here the story on the EU law about deleting older links to personal data from search engines. Where most US contributors insisted that this data is "facts" and it would be "free speech" to disseminate it as businesses see fit. Combine this with EULA practices where businesses (many in monopoly position) will not service you unless you agree that they collect your personal data and share it freely with various "partners". When such practice is questioned they always justify it through "it's good for the economy". Case closed. Unless we take the time to question what exactly "economy" is. But we never do.

Cinavia. Except its effect is rather bizarre. While it doesn't prevent you from "making copies", it prevents you from playing audio of said copies on a PS3 and selected Blu-Ray players. Guess it didn't help increase Blu-Ray disk sales, but it surely helped decrease PS3 and Blu-Ray player sales.

Looks like the difference between censorship of ideas or scientific theories/facts and practicing restraint in publishing personal data is too subtle for you.

The question here is the lifespan of he "news", not how you classify their support (paper vs. internet, search vs. non-search etc). Traditionally this lifespan was limited to a few days while the said newspaper was on the stands. After that, access to those news was becoming cumbersome, i.e. like in having to go to the library and manually scroll through miles of archived microfiche. This 2 tiers system (news stands vs. microfiche) was ensuring that, while the information was still retained, you were practically "forgotten" and "out of the news" for the purpose of daily life. Obviously a newspaper could have elected to later regurgitate the same news and publish them again on the front page; however, they couldn't do this forever (you being on the front page for months for exactly the same news may have ended in a harassment lawsuit).

With the advent of internet, there's only one tier of "archiving", i.e. those news are always one search/click away from the public, making them "front page" for ever.