Because even if YOU happened to do that, you're in the minority.
In the US, they might (sometimes reluctantly) sell directly to the consumer but it's a small fraction
of their overall sales. Their actual customers (att,verizon, etcc) do market to the consumer so they
do need features that consumers want but the phone service companies still have a large say on
what is and is not included.

Are you sure about this? I think alot of it is selection bias. Men tend to prioritize money more than women. Men are probably more likely
to chose a job that pays better even if it hurts their family life. It's no wonder men on average make more than women because they
are choosing their jobs based on pay. Women chose children, helping others, less stressful work, etc... more than men.
One main reason for this (besides biology) is that women are less likely to be the bread winner. When you compare single childless never married
women to single childless never married men then on average WOMEN ACTUALLY MAKE MORE THAN MEN

I've actually met more male accountants than female accounts. The rest is still a matter of taste and/or pay. Men can many
times find other jobs they like better that also pay better. Women like to take care of people. I know many women who chose
social work, nursing, teaching, etc.. because that was their passion. Not near as many men have that as a passion and although
lots of men like children alot of men don't want to spend all day with them. No gender preference is absolute but alot of it does
seem to be genetic and there is enough of a tilt one way or the other to slant different professions without the need to bring
conspiracy into it.

I think quantity is a perfectly acceptable metric but not as "total number of women who played a game last week" but rather
"total minutes played by women last week". I would define someone who is playing games 4-6 hours a day as a gamer even
if those games only consist of candy crush, farmville, and word with friends. And as far as advertisers are concerned the
candy crush, farmville, and word with friends group is more valuable as they are exposed to alot more ads than the person
playing mario on an xbox. The world doesn't care how stupid and mindless the game is as long as you're spending hours
doing it.

Why did you bother to use "on occasion" for trekkies but not for gamers. I would define a gamer based on intensity.
I would define someone who is playing games 4-6 hours a day as a gamer even if those games only consist of candy crush, farmville, and word with friends.

I've actually said this for a while. I think cancer is closely linked with aging.
I expect that we will "cure" cancer about the same time we manage to "cure" aging.

No problem, we should just start sterilizing all the children and grandchildren of anyone who gets cancer.
Problem solved. In a couple generation no one will have cancer anymore.

You aren't too far from the truth. The reason many cancer treatments kill white blood cells and hair is because scientists have discovered
that they can selectively target the "fast growing" cells. White blood cells, hair, and cancer fall into this category so while they aren't
accurate enough to target just the cancer the collateral damage is acceptable.

I'm assuming over time by discovering additional pathways that they will be able to be a little specific in their targeting than "kill all the fast ones"
but it works and is a step in the right direction.

What if you have 4 loads of laundry to do or what if that "something else" is leave the house?
With 2.5 hours to wash and 1.5 hours to dry AND the requirement to switch it halfway thru you have to be at your house
and awake for 16 hours straight to do only 4 loads of laundry. You can't just start it before you leave for work as when you
get home the clothes will be musty or wrinkled depending on whether you left them in the washer or the dryer.

I can deal with the wrinkles and I've considered actually replacing my washer and dryer with 2 single cycle wash/dry combo units
where you don't have to move them from the washer to the dryer but I've heard those all-in-one units aren't very good.

That's not exactly true. There are plenty of actors who are still willing to work for chimney sweep wages just as there are
plenty of musicians, artists, and ball players that are willing to work for chimney sweep wages.
The reason actors, musicians, artists, and ball players are some of the highest paid in the world is because we as a society have
decided that we only want to watch the "best of the best". A director would love to film a film with a bunch of "cheap" actors but
cheap actors don't do as good of a job and the producer can't splash the cheap actor's name on the trailers and posters.
If people were willing to watch second rate actors and second rate ball players then first rate actors and ball players wouldn't
be able to demand the huge salaries.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The "time to market" for the fashion industry copycats is orders of magnitude longer. I can have a copy
of a movie torrented 2 hours after the first midnight showing long before most people even watch it. To copy a dress would probably take
several weeks minimum. There are other differences too. Coach has went on record that they don't mind copycats because it just helps
their brand and the people buying copycats can't afford coach and the people buying coach don't want a knockoff.

Seems backwards how? Would you say the same if someone snuck into an amusement park and disabled all the rides?
What about if that same person broke into your house and stole your dvd collection or stole all the copies of that
movie from walmart? What about if he decided to start making copies of dollar bills instead of cds?

Laws are designed to keep order. We have different punishments for different crimes but even "small crimes" like
speeding can eventually land you in prison if you blatantly disregard the law. Prison is also the ultimate deterent
for someone like this person who has "nothing to lose". You can't have a civilized society without some form of
punishment for someone with "nothing to lose". If you don't like a law then you can work to change it or if there
is enough disagreement then you can actively ignore like in prohibition but even in prohibition plenty of people went
to jail before the laws were eventually reversed. The best thing to do is obey the laws until you are able to get
them changed.

Of course that's how it works. I never said it wasn't but do you think the "investors" are going to keep paying everyone to
make the movies if they don't make money on them?

It doesn't matter. It actually makes it worse that they aren't because it increases the risk to the investor if they have to
prepay all those services. People who invest millions in a movie are taking a risk. If the movie flops (or if everyone
downloads it for free), then the investor is loses money and will no longer be willing to front the movie for future films
to be made. Many people behind the scene even if given the option would rather have a steady paycheck than to risk
working for 6 months for free.

There would be alternatives. It would be theoretically possible to crowdsource a movie (i.e. kickstarter).
Someone big in hollywood would probably have enough clout to say "we need 20 million to produce this movie" and
sell "tickets" on kickstarter. When/if it reaches the $20million then they produce the movie and release
it for free on the internet. That being said, it actually might be the "little guys" that removing copy protection would
hurt the most. Someone who already has a name could crowdsource $20million. Someone who doesn't
have name recognition would have a much harder time "preselling" that many tickets.