I was just reading a Slashdot article about copyright infringement when I noticed a very interesting comment:

“Actually some people pay to see the movie, then download it to add to their collection. Shame on me, for not forking out an additional $25 for the DVD.”

For some reason I never really thought about it that way. It is an interesting argument and it follows the same line of reasoning behind DRM systems: The whole point is to make you pay more than once for the same content. If, as consumers, we reject the idea that we should have to pay for each copy of a movie we have on our shelf/computer/Tivo/iPod/Phone why should we accept the idea that we should pay more than once, period?

I’m inclined to agree with with this commenter. If I pay to see a movie in a theater why should I have to pay again to have a copy on DVD? I mean, extras are nice sometimes but I doubt I’d pay twice the cost to get them.

It would be nice/interesting if movie theaters provided you a copy of the DVD with the ads and trailers as part of the fee for seeing the movie. I’m guessing that the money advertisers pay for such a privilege would exceed the profit from a store-bought DVD. It could be “that new business model” the theaters are looking for. Of course, the movie studios would never accept this as it would mean less profits but it certainly wouldn’t be inequitable or unfair. The current model just doesn’t seem right.