I percieve the value of a film to be pretty low, I mean I watch them for free on TV when they are shown. I percieve the cost of a DVD to be low, I can buy a stack of blank ones for a relatively small amount of money. Why is a digital download almost as much as a physical copy?
If I add the "value" of the film, to the "value" of the DVD (or download), I don't get anywhere near the price I'm expected to pay for them. The only DVD's I tend to buy are the £3 ones from supermarkets and DVD stores, I don't buy digital downloads, they are just too expensive, if I'm shelling out cold hard cash, I want something physical they can't take away from me, if I'm paying pennies then I'll accept a digital copy I can play wherever I like (not just where I'm allowed to). I'm not paying £10+ for a DVD, as I don't think that is good value for money.
The other argument is they need to charge £10+ for a DVD because so many people are copying it? That's nonsense, if they were actually losing money they wouldn't be making more films, the music and film industries are certainly not (as a whole) making a loss.
The "I do not pay because it is not worth it" argument is very true, it *really* isn't worth it, the cost of a DVD is over an hours minimum wage, pushing an hour ar average wage I would guess. When I can get entertainment from the BBC for ~£130 a year, and I listen to and watch a lot of BBC content, I read the website, *that* is value for money, I also don't have to go out of my way to access it.
Because some corporation has brainwashed a lot of people into thinking it is hard done by, and sticks rigidly to an ancient (in terms of media delivery) business strategy, shafts over the little guys, people agree with (and defend) them... It's rather sad.