My point is; the model is wrong. An expensive, outdated method is being used because distribution of these movies is controlled by a small established group with deep pockets. I don't imagine the producers like the situation, nor the stars of the movie. They would probably make more if they could just release their film online instead of paying a middle man to package it up and ship it around.

If the government is going to step in and try to stop piracy, fine. I want to live in a world where I can write an application and become financially independent from it (and without having to give it away and get paid for support, yuck!). But they also have to address this issue that these old, but rich companies are hurting the economy by insisting on being inefficient middle men that customers don't care about and probably not creators of the content either.

OK, it sounds as if we're both agreed about piracy being bad.

Re: control of distribution, for large budget films, unfortunately, the people who fund them want to limit the 0-day release to cinemas - as they find it's more profitable, which probably helps pay for all those special effects. Personally I don't mind - it's their movie.

Yes, I definitely think it's bad. If we don't find a good way to deal with it (not eliminate, even physical goods sellers haven't achieved that, but bring down to more digestible levels) a lot of markets will eventually shrink drastically.

I can understand wanting to limit early releases while the film is still in the cinema. Fair enough, but personally I think after a suitable amount of time has passed the producers should release the films to digital channels (e.g. iTunes) themselves. I don't think the money distributors cream off the top makes anything better. In my ideal world distributors would be producing the DVD/CD/BlueRay disks for the very small (eventually) group of people who still want to consume that way. In other words, they would be by far the smallest group in the picture, not the biggest.