Digital borrowing destroys movie ownership

Not true. The disenchantment is that the movies aren't worth $20 to own, but are worth $5 to rent once.

I prefer to own a movie DVD or Blu-Ray, but I only purchase movies I intend on watching more than once. Which is damn few movies.

Exactly! I have only two or three...............it's not like the ending changed or I forgot. In fact I think the two I own were gifts and the other one is Band of Brothers-Collectors edition. Which I've never even opened.

Hmmm... I'm thinking the quality of the movies is going down (hence the drop at the cinema's), and, in all honesty, if I want to see a movie, I will wait till it is broadcasted on TV (over and over and over again). I can wait another 6 months for a film that was not even an idea 2 years ago...

Back in my bartending days I had a co-worker who was a movie snob. He signed up to those 'movie-of-the-month' clubs and had rooms stacked with movies. It looked nice and there were a great selection from around the world but the best movies for him were 'indie'. Even then the independent movie scene was far more innovative with much less budget then the big screen big budget flicks. He considered them homogenized. I tend to agree. You support the big screen flicks you end up with water down sequels and far less risk with writing. Sure, indie films end up with far more bad films but in order to become a master you must take risks and that involves a lot of flops for only a few hits. Hollywood would never go for that and would rather cherry pick the best of indie rather than invest in long term development charge a fortune and live off royalties. DRM is just an extension of that to ensure the maximum payoff for royalties. Hollywood has been living off their laurels rather than investing in the industry and it is high time artists understood that and started trail lazing their own productions instead like Louis CK did and cut the middlemen out altogether. Then the market will drive quality instead of float the margins for vultures.

No doubt. If it's not worth seeing in the theatre, what makes Hollywood think anyone is going to buy it? I occasionally take a chance on the bargain bin at Wal-Mart or the used DVDs shelf at the rental place if I feel like taking a chance on what appears to be a mediocre movie.

I watch a fair number of movies repeatedly, saves me from buying the newer ones until they are on a 3/$10 sale.

I see no point in owning movies. Having discs seems outdated to me.

It is rare for me to watch a movie more than once.

Last movie I saw in theatres? Capitalism: A Love Story. There were only two other people in there.

The irony is strong today!

C:ALS was produced for about $21 million dollars and it made only $17 million in the box office and has knocked back an amazing $475,000 in DVD sales. In sum it lost about $3.5 million dollars.

Meaning that this moved failed as a capitalist venture.

I have exactly 0 movies on disc, bought or copied.

I buy books that I know I'll read again after a year or so and I have quite a few of those.

I have exactly 0 movies on disc, bought or copied.

I buy books that I know I'll read again after a year or so and I have quite a few of those.
How do people do that? I have a small bookshelf so full of movies that I need to start boxing some.

The irony is strong today!

C:ALS was produced for about $21 million dollars and it made only $17 million in the box office and has knocked back an amazing $475,000 in DVD sales. In sum it lost about $3.5 million dollars.

Meaning that this moved failed as a capitalist venture.
Not sure how that's irony. If the movie was pro-capitalist, it might be irony.

I have large bookshelves full of books... what a novel idea (pun intended).

You do know that eventually, the medium will change and you won't even be able to watch those movies again.

I have large bookshelves full of books... what a novel idea (pun intended).
I have one filled with books too, and a box hidden somewhere full of old books (I filled the bookshelf again).