I fail to see where this is insightfull, even if it is just one moderation point. Sure, lets have new movies go to pay-per-view where the viewer can rip the movie all he wants in higher quality than he could have done with a camcorder. I mean, yea, it is a great way to keep the cams out of the movie theaters, it is also a great way to hurt the theater industy, and a great way to make it easier for bootlegers.

... You mean so that people can just rip it, rather than sit in a theatre with a cam?

Solution: offer movies-on-demand at the same time they play in theaters.

Would this mean that I could use the camcorder at home to record the movie??

just wondering.....wait, I think I hear a knock on the door....does anybody here know who the FDI is???

The studios would LOVE to do this if they could. Or at least have the DVD on the market the same day, but they are intertwined with the exhibitors and they would scream for cutting into their profits.

There's an obvious demand for movies currently playing in theaters to be offered at home. HBO was originally founded on this notion, IIRC.

So, does this mean if you subscribe to HBO and other premium movie channels this gives you the right to actually pirate a movie? The HBO/SHO package in my region costs $25/month above and beyond base cable fees. This is a hell of a drop in cost from the $1-$10 at the boxofficce to HBO. While I don't condone going to the theater using a camcorder, I would argue the p

I'm sure the movie theaters would be all over that idea. I'd rather see it at the theater anyway if it wasn't $8 a ticket.