People have talked about the zero marginal cost issue with trivially copiable goods, and I simply don't think this is a surmountable obstacle for the film busin

People have talked about the zero marginal cost issue with trivially copiable goods, and I simply don't think this is a surmountable obstacle for the film business as a business. Already, when people say "I prefer to pay for a film to support filmmakers, actors etc" the implied subclause is that "I could choose otherwise." And that's where I see it going, really. Look at classical music, the visual arts, theatre (outside of big Broadway/West End musicals) - these continue to exist overwhelmingly on the basis of patronage from the state and philanthropists. This is not exactly an apples-for-apples comparison (a symphonic or theatrical performance is not copiable in the same way as digital video; still less are prints of paintings substitutable for the real thing); but the underlying issue is similar: it costs more to put these things on than can be made back in gate receipts. And so, when people choose to pay for films in a situation where it is just as easy to pirate (it often isn't actually), they are being philanthropic and paying a non-market price for the film. I don't see how a $10 monthly subscription model is going to sustain the entire film industry, although maybe someone can do better maths than me on the back of their napkin.