It's the entertainment industry in a nutshell - the second an act or movie becomes popular, EVERY studio/label/whatever clones it in an attempt to cash in on the success. Backstreet Boys takes off and sells millions? Enter N'Stync, 98 Degrees, etc. Dark Knight racks up a billion dollars worldwide? Now every superhero movie has to be "dark" and "gritty." Nirvana sells millions of records and overtakes Michael Jackson in the top 40? Enter the grunge era where every band that uses distortion and 4 power chords gets a record deal.

Very few people have "original" thoughts. Everyone else is about oversaturating the market to try to get their little piece of the pie.

It depends on when and where you go. In my area (LA and OC suburbs), the major chain theaters have early bird specials where shows before noon are $6 (for Edwards) or $7 (for AMC). Thus, I tend to catch an morning show, have lunch after (thus skipping theater food costs), and then I can on my way.

Matinee, though, jumps up to $9.50 so I only pay that for movies that I REALLY want to see.

From the point of a view of a musician here...

I'm in the camp that says that there is no good reason for DRM, ever, no matter what situation the artist is in.

For a new musician who is trying to break into the business, DRM tends to be counterproductive b/c what I'm looking for is exposure. I want as many people as possible to listen to my music. At this point, I don't care how they obtain it; as long as they're listening and telling other people about my music, that's fine. In fact, I'd consider it an honor if people put my music up for download via Pirate Bay or whatnot b/c it means that there are people out there who like my music enough that they're willing to go out of their way to distribute it to others. Why in the world would I want to obstruct that process by including DRM in my music?

For an established musician, I believe that DRM still serves no purpose. I believe in the integrity of the fans and that one's art should speak for itself. If my music is good, then people will buy. Period. The artists who support DRM are probably those whose music isn't up to par, whose entire reputation was built on a fluke hit single that they've been trying to reproduce ever since. In that case, of course they'd like to attempt to lock up access to their music - they don't want people trying before they buy b/c what they have to offer isn't worth a nickel.

Basically, those who put forth quality products really have nothing to fear; attempting to restrict access only pisses people off and severely limits the number of new fans that one can obtain.

While I do agree that requiring faculty to use the free books is dangerous, take a look at it from the professor's point of view. One of my professors in my paralegal program freely spoke to us about the process of choosing textbooks. He basically said that the majority of textbooks out there on a given topic are the same. Occasionally, there'll be a standout book but his general thought was that no book was perfect - that is, books that cover one area of the subject well tend to lack in other areas. Thus, when he chooses a textbook for a course, the "teacher perks" end up being about as large a factor as the actual content of the book itself... things like question bank, supplemental materials, online materials and support, etc. Thus, if there are going to be free textbooks, there'll have to be adequate corresponding teacher support materials to go along with it... b/c, let's face it, the majority of college professors are used to having access to test banks and whatnot. Without this, I don't think teachers would have an incentive to adopt, no matter what the cost.

Now available at McDonalds: the McTransistor! Gives a whole new meaning to term "artificial flavor."