I cancelled Spotify when they stopped paying me any royalties on my music. I’m a small time artist and didn’t hit their 1,000 streams per year per song threshold for most of my songs.
I know I am just one small example, but their decision to cheat me out of a few dollars has cost them hundreds in subscription fees.
They can do it because the hundreds of thousands of artists they did it to can’t afford to sue them. All the big name artists and the record labels (that own part of Spotify) are all benefiting from the scheme so they won’t do anything about it.
To this day I refuse to buy digital only media. Hoping DVDs or blue rays take off again. Maybe something else? I’m not up to date with the modern physical media formats.
Correction:
I meant to speak of my refusal to buy downloadable media like tv shows, movies, video games or music.
As penance, I shall force myself to write maven config for old Java projects.
DVDs are digital-only media - "Digital Versatile Disc". There is no analog component in it. The disc stores data digitally.
Furthermore, if by digital you mean online distribution, well, you aren't buying media by definition. You're downloading bits from a wire (or radio wave) and storing it on your own physical media.
Among the general public, there is rampant terminology abuse and devaluing of what the word "digital" means - it is in contrast to "analog", not in contrast to physical, non-electronic, non-online, etc. For example, you can make digital logic gates out of mechanical LEGO; you can deliver digital data on floppy disks via sneakers.
I disagree, I didn't know what they meant. It's a fairly confusing use of the term "digital media", which is almost always meant as opposed to analog media.
I assume the parent is using it to mean streaming, or other kinds of DRM.
If we're going to be super pedantic about exactly what words mean, then a DVD is digital but it's not "digital only". Every single owner has a physical disc with the movie on it. Digital only ownership is a few bytes abstracted into some database somewhere, and the movie files themselves are also very loosely correlated with hardware.
> a DVD is digital but it's not "digital only". Every single owner has a physical disc with the movie on it.
That satisfies the definition of "digital only" - every person who has the movie (conceptually speaking) has a digital version of it. This holds true as long as no one tried to print the movie onto paper as an analog image, or export it to VHS or something like that.
Note that digital does not contrast with physical. A DVD is a physical object that holds digital data. A sequence of pulses on an Ethernet cable conveys digital information via waves of electromagnetic energy.
> Digital only ownership is a few bytes abstracted into some database somewhere
And somebody still ultimately has to store at least one copy of the movie on a physical medium somewhere.
> Digital only ownership
I think we can all agree that if you own some coins/tokens/NFTs on Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc., that is a very pure form of digital-only ownership. There is no intuitive physical object that corresponds to the ownership of a digital token.
Yet, that blockchain database is publicly available and mirrored millions of times; it is not locked up behind a single company. This differs from what you were trying to say, where I interpret your notion of "digital-only" to mean that "the movie studio hosts the file on its server and streams it to you on demand, but you can never download a copy of the movie to keep for yourself".
Ultimately, "digital" just means that the information you wanted is a finite sequence of 0s and 1s, as opposed to some analog signal with infinite variation. "Digital" says nothing about who owns it, how many copies exist, how it is delivered, etc.
> That satisfies the definition of "digital only" - every person who has the movie (conceptually speaking) has a digital version of it. This holds true as long as no one tried to print the movie onto paper as an analog image, or export it to VHS or something like that.
The term "digital only" says nothing about being digital versus analog in particular.
> Note that digital does not contrast with physical.
Sure it can.
> I think we can all agree that if you own some coins/tokens/NFTs on Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc., that is a very pure form of digital-only ownership. There is no intuitive physical object that corresponds to the ownership of a digital token.
> Yet, that blockchain database is publicly available and mirrored millions of times; it is not locked up behind a single company. This differs from what you were trying to say, where I interpret your notion of "digital-only" to mean that "the movie studio hosts the file on its server and streams it to you on demand, but you can never download a copy of the movie to keep for yourself".
It's not that the lockup is a fundamental part, but in the streaming case it helps enforce the idea that the movie you get is never properly embodied and only exists in an abstract data pool.
A blockchain has lots of replicas but they're all still abstract database entries. Even a "physical bitcoin" is just the keys and not the entries.
> Ultimately, "digital" just means that the information you wanted is a finite sequence of 0s and 1s, as opposed to some analog signal with infinite variation. "Digital" says nothing about who owns it, how many copies exist, how it is delivered, etc.
I think other uses make sense and fit this context.
Your reply, while technically correct (the best kind), reminds me of a joke I wrote not long ago. I’m going to write it here from memory, so please disregard any loss of humor during the process.
A wasp is just a bee with anger management issues.
Technically incorrect as they’re not quite the same. But amusing nonetheless.
Optical disc media is pretty great, if only they didn't scratch so easily... Or get completely destroyed if something sticks to the label side and you try to pull it off... Or delaminate themselves from old age...
Enclosed discs like Minidisc solve most of those, but still die from age.
Still hope they can perfect those "laser-created point clouds in glass cubes" media someday
Minidiscs are the most practical physical media I’ve come across. The used discs I’ve bought are 20-25 years old and don’t have a case or anything and still play like they were recorded yesterday, even when their contents make it clear that they were recorded to shortly after the disc was manufactured. The CDs and DVDs I’ve burned of the same age are comparably in much poorer shape, some being entirely unreadable.
Their size is great, too, being about as small as you can get while still being easy to handle across the gamut of human hand sizes yet too big to easily lose, and they’re more fun than SD and CF cards with their outer plastic casings coming in all sorts of colors and patterns.
A new media format that takes these strengths and fuses them with those of flash storage would be wonderful. The only thing is that I don’t know how you’d solve is the bit rot problem flash has when spending extended time powered down — maybe dedicated storage for parity data? Capacitors that hold just enough juice to keep the flash “alive”? Redundant flash chips? This isn’t my area of expertise so I’m just throwing things at the wall haha.
I recently started an effort to make backups of all of my DVDs and blurays, and it's not a lot but I do have a number of older discs of both sorts that now have errors or even can't be read at all despite only leaving their cases a handful of times and having no visual damage.
I've yet to lose any data after validating a good burn on any M-DISC DVD even well over a decade now. I have also not experienced any loss in data for Verbatim Blu-rays after validating the burn.
I remember back when I was making xbox 360 back ups buying a cheap dvd just would not work most of the time getting to many errors. I think it was the Verbatim brand also burned at a slow speed that seemed to be the most successful.
My thought with that is that being cheap to save a few bucks on on discs might cost you your data. Buy the trusted brands who have a proven track record.
Yeah, I remember finding a good supply of Verbatim DVD+/-Rs and +RWs, and iirc the -Rs seemed to work better for my particular stock internal optical drive, and a slow burn speed was key. Once I got FTP setup to my desktop and sorted out the FATX situation, I upgraded my internal HDD and didn't really mess with disc-based backups for 360 as it didn't seem worth the hassle once I got it ironed out, which I'll admit was a decently complex project involving hot-swapping, but not much more complicated than the initial drive firmware flash. They're fun machines to mod, especially as I had just finished an OG Xbox softmod project at the time (~2007).
Edit:
This might be relevant to your interests, and to others interested in 360 modding.
> Bad Update is a non-persistent software only hypervisor exploit for Xbox 360 that works on the latest (17559) software version. This repository contains the exploit files that can be used on an Xbox 360 console to run unsigned code.
Addendum:
Modern Vintage Gamer's video of the exploit, which is amazing to see. I had no idea 360 softmods were a thing, and the exploit can run against a free trial version of a retail game, which is just chef's kiss.
> Any Xbox 360 can now be hacked in less than one minute
> A look a the newest V1.2 Badupdate Exploit - Xbox 360 software only Hypervisor Hack that we covered back in March 2025. It requires an Xbox 360 - any model including the later Winchester revisions! A USB flash drive and Rock Band Blitz Trial. This updated 1.2 hack runs much faster and reliable and is now a recommended option to hack any Xbox 360. In today's episode we take a closer look at the BadUpdate V1.2 exploit.
I'd say the article is largely correct, but I have at least one nitpick:
> ‘How do you burn a CD?’ It’s something that was common for us growing up, but that’s knowledge that’s being lost as everything is sort of transitioning to digital.”
This paragraph is using a colloquial but wrong definition of the word "digital" - in this context it seems to mean "online audio/video distribution".
This is wrong because CDs, by definition, hold digital data. Some of us who are old enough to have lived through the transition from unapologetically analog audio media - vinyl records and magnetic cassette tape - to digital, optical compact discs. That was the real transition to digital, not the transition from digital physical media to digital online downloads (both are still digital). Likewise, the transition from analog broadcast TV and analog VHS tapes to digital TV and VCD/DVD/BD was less than 20 years ago. (Side note: LaserDisc stores video analogly but audio digitally.)
Digital is a word that fundamentally contrasts with analog - where analog means infinite variation, no resistance to noise, and imperfect copies. Digital simply means being composed of integers, which further implies finite information and allows perfect copies.
The misuse of the word digital to mean superfluous things is a mockery to the monumental human achievement in inventing and perfecting digital machines and methods of storing/transmitting images and sounds, being much higher quality than previous analog technologies (e.g. photographic film) and allowing information to be delivered reliably across wider space and time.
Digital does not imply electronic, new and high-tech, virtual, or communications-based (as opposed to transporting matter-based recording media). Mechanical LEGO logic is digital. DNA is digital and very old. Alphabets are digital (we agree today there are exactly 26 letters in English). The telegraph network was digital and messages were relayed by humans. A "virtual" meeting involving digital videoconferencing could just as well be held using analog NTSC video channels; the fact that digital technology happened to be used doesn't define the virtual meeting. "Digital marketing" is understood as doing business on the web/Internet through electronic online communications, but I could argue that a paper brochure designed on a digital computer is also "digital marketing".
Vernacular shifts as society and technology change. As evidence, it doesn't seem like you or GP misunderstood the journalist's meaning. This is pedantry.
Applying wrong definitions results in confusion and contradictions.
If "digital" means "by means of communication rather than delivering physical objects", then a digital camera held in your hand is not "digital". (But operating someone else's camera over the Internet would be a "digital camera".) Conversely, receiving music over analog FM radio would be "digital" because the information came from far away.
If "digital" means electronic, then printing a black-and-white QR Code (which is clearly made of discrete squares) onto paper makes that paper image not "digital". DNA with its 4 possible base pairs would not be digital. Doing accounting with pen and paper, involving discrete numbers, would not be digital. Moreover, an electronic computer made of analog capacitors, resistors, transistors, and op-amps - and with a continuous range of input and output values - would be classified as "digital" under this definition. On the other hand, sending 0s and 1s as photons in a fiber-optic cable would not be considered digital as the signal is not electrical or electronic in nature.
If "digital" means high-tech, then inventing an analog computer chip in the year 2026 would be considered more "digital" than conventional digital computer chips invented in the 1970s. (This isn't theoretical; there are researchers working on analog computers for neural networks to save die area and power consumption.)
By misusing definitions for "digital", things that are not digital get misclassified as digital, while things that are digital get misclassified as non-digital.
The only correct definition of digital with respect to information technology is the involvement of numerical digits. Everything else are qualities associated with popular digital systems, but are not fundamental definitions of digital systems.
Pure pedantry. The meaning in context was clear to a reasonable fluent reader such as yourself. Instead of focusing on pedantic form, I suggest focusing on the intent and content of TFA: Is physical media cool again and if so, why.
Are they really blaming anyone? This is a good thing, but it's destined to remain pretty niche. The vast majority of people do what's easiest and what everyone else is doing. They like streaming and watch whatever is put on their home screen. Tons of people watched Electric State, Red Notice, The Tomorrow War. Citadel got a season 2.
Some people used to have the TV running constantly, solely as "background noise", without any interest in what's on screen. Those same people will likely also prop up viewer or listener numbers for literally whatever the streamer put up on screen next. But this does not tell you anything about the actual interest in the media.
Right. At least with cinema it takes a certain amount of intention to choose to go out and see something. Not that there aren't successful bad movies anyway, but at least the audience has agency.
It’s not physical media, but I’ve been buying iTunes copies of Movies and TV Shows instead of streaming. I feel it’s better to own my favorite classics from the golden age of film and tv vs paying by the month for the latest stupid remake. It’s a huge shift from how I felt a few years ago.
I didn't have Disney Vault thing in mind when I came up with that. LRG's (and similar companies) schtick was that they're semi-upfront about pandering to collectors, especially with the extra goodies (sometimes of varying quality when they finally delivered).
EDIT: Especially for physical releases of streaming-only shows/films, since these companies mainly do that for digital-only games.
I cancelled Spotify when they stopped paying me any royalties on my music. I’m a small time artist and didn’t hit their 1,000 streams per year per song threshold for most of my songs.
I know I am just one small example, but their decision to cheat me out of a few dollars has cost them hundreds in subscription fees.
how can they do that?
It seems it would be more fair to pay a listing minimum, then royalties if they meet a certain criteria.
They can do it because the hundreds of thousands of artists they did it to can’t afford to sue them. All the big name artists and the record labels (that own part of Spotify) are all benefiting from the scheme so they won’t do anything about it.
Why would Spotify care about what’s fair?
I was thinking more of "fairness/justice" by some authority that is not spotify.
To this day I refuse to buy digital only media. Hoping DVDs or blue rays take off again. Maybe something else? I’m not up to date with the modern physical media formats.
Correction:
I meant to speak of my refusal to buy downloadable media like tv shows, movies, video games or music.
As penance, I shall force myself to write maven config for old Java projects.
> I refuse to buy digital only media.
DVDs are digital-only media - "Digital Versatile Disc". There is no analog component in it. The disc stores data digitally.
Furthermore, if by digital you mean online distribution, well, you aren't buying media by definition. You're downloading bits from a wire (or radio wave) and storing it on your own physical media.
Among the general public, there is rampant terminology abuse and devaluing of what the word "digital" means - it is in contrast to "analog", not in contrast to physical, non-electronic, non-online, etc. For example, you can make digital logic gates out of mechanical LEGO; you can deliver digital data on floppy disks via sneakers.
This is an absurd level of pedantry, everyone knew what OP meant.
I disagree, I didn't know what they meant. It's a fairly confusing use of the term "digital media", which is almost always meant as opposed to analog media.
I assume the parent is using it to mean streaming, or other kinds of DRM.
I think it’s valid to distinguish between digital (downloaded) and digital (streamed), which OP and the article fail to do.
The problem is owned (for practical purposes) versus leased content. Not digital or physical.
Words mean things.
If we're going to be super pedantic about exactly what words mean, then a DVD is digital but it's not "digital only". Every single owner has a physical disc with the movie on it. Digital only ownership is a few bytes abstracted into some database somewhere, and the movie files themselves are also very loosely correlated with hardware.
> a DVD is digital but it's not "digital only". Every single owner has a physical disc with the movie on it.
That satisfies the definition of "digital only" - every person who has the movie (conceptually speaking) has a digital version of it. This holds true as long as no one tried to print the movie onto paper as an analog image, or export it to VHS or something like that.
Note that digital does not contrast with physical. A DVD is a physical object that holds digital data. A sequence of pulses on an Ethernet cable conveys digital information via waves of electromagnetic energy.
> Digital only ownership is a few bytes abstracted into some database somewhere
And somebody still ultimately has to store at least one copy of the movie on a physical medium somewhere.
> Digital only ownership
I think we can all agree that if you own some coins/tokens/NFTs on Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc., that is a very pure form of digital-only ownership. There is no intuitive physical object that corresponds to the ownership of a digital token.
Yet, that blockchain database is publicly available and mirrored millions of times; it is not locked up behind a single company. This differs from what you were trying to say, where I interpret your notion of "digital-only" to mean that "the movie studio hosts the file on its server and streams it to you on demand, but you can never download a copy of the movie to keep for yourself".
Ultimately, "digital" just means that the information you wanted is a finite sequence of 0s and 1s, as opposed to some analog signal with infinite variation. "Digital" says nothing about who owns it, how many copies exist, how it is delivered, etc.
> That satisfies the definition of "digital only" - every person who has the movie (conceptually speaking) has a digital version of it. This holds true as long as no one tried to print the movie onto paper as an analog image, or export it to VHS or something like that.
The term "digital only" says nothing about being digital versus analog in particular.
> Note that digital does not contrast with physical.
Sure it can.
> I think we can all agree that if you own some coins/tokens/NFTs on Bitcoin/Ethereum/etc., that is a very pure form of digital-only ownership. There is no intuitive physical object that corresponds to the ownership of a digital token.
> Yet, that blockchain database is publicly available and mirrored millions of times; it is not locked up behind a single company. This differs from what you were trying to say, where I interpret your notion of "digital-only" to mean that "the movie studio hosts the file on its server and streams it to you on demand, but you can never download a copy of the movie to keep for yourself".
It's not that the lockup is a fundamental part, but in the streaming case it helps enforce the idea that the movie you get is never properly embodied and only exists in an abstract data pool.
A blockchain has lots of replicas but they're all still abstract database entries. Even a "physical bitcoin" is just the keys and not the entries.
> Ultimately, "digital" just means that the information you wanted is a finite sequence of 0s and 1s, as opposed to some analog signal with infinite variation. "Digital" says nothing about who owns it, how many copies exist, how it is delivered, etc.
I think other uses make sense and fit this context.
Your reply, while technically correct (the best kind), reminds me of a joke I wrote not long ago. I’m going to write it here from memory, so please disregard any loss of humor during the process.
A wasp is just a bee with anger management issues.
Technically incorrect as they’re not quite the same. But amusing nonetheless.
You clearly understood the author's intent; was this lecture for the author of the comment or yourself?
Optical disc media is pretty great, if only they didn't scratch so easily... Or get completely destroyed if something sticks to the label side and you try to pull it off... Or delaminate themselves from old age...
Enclosed discs like Minidisc solve most of those, but still die from age.
Still hope they can perfect those "laser-created point clouds in glass cubes" media someday
Minidiscs are the most practical physical media I’ve come across. The used discs I’ve bought are 20-25 years old and don’t have a case or anything and still play like they were recorded yesterday, even when their contents make it clear that they were recorded to shortly after the disc was manufactured. The CDs and DVDs I’ve burned of the same age are comparably in much poorer shape, some being entirely unreadable.
Their size is great, too, being about as small as you can get while still being easy to handle across the gamut of human hand sizes yet too big to easily lose, and they’re more fun than SD and CF cards with their outer plastic casings coming in all sorts of colors and patterns.
A new media format that takes these strengths and fuses them with those of flash storage would be wonderful. The only thing is that I don’t know how you’d solve is the bit rot problem flash has when spending extended time powered down — maybe dedicated storage for parity data? Capacitors that hold just enough juice to keep the flash “alive”? Redundant flash chips? This isn’t my area of expertise so I’m just throwing things at the wall haha.
I recently started an effort to make backups of all of my DVDs and blurays, and it's not a lot but I do have a number of older discs of both sorts that now have errors or even can't be read at all despite only leaving their cases a handful of times and having no visual damage.
It's been sobering for me.
What brand/model of discs had high failure rates?
I've yet to lose any data after validating a good burn on any M-DISC DVD even well over a decade now. I have also not experienced any loss in data for Verbatim Blu-rays after validating the burn.
I remember back when I was making xbox 360 back ups buying a cheap dvd just would not work most of the time getting to many errors. I think it was the Verbatim brand also burned at a slow speed that seemed to be the most successful. My thought with that is that being cheap to save a few bucks on on discs might cost you your data. Buy the trusted brands who have a proven track record.
Yeah, I remember finding a good supply of Verbatim DVD+/-Rs and +RWs, and iirc the -Rs seemed to work better for my particular stock internal optical drive, and a slow burn speed was key. Once I got FTP setup to my desktop and sorted out the FATX situation, I upgraded my internal HDD and didn't really mess with disc-based backups for 360 as it didn't seem worth the hassle once I got it ironed out, which I'll admit was a decently complex project involving hot-swapping, but not much more complicated than the initial drive firmware flash. They're fun machines to mod, especially as I had just finished an OG Xbox softmod project at the time (~2007).
Edit:
This might be relevant to your interests, and to others interested in 360 modding.
https://github.com/grimdoomer/Xbox360BadUpdate
> Bad Update is a non-persistent software only hypervisor exploit for Xbox 360 that works on the latest (17559) software version. This repository contains the exploit files that can be used on an Xbox 360 console to run unsigned code.
Addendum:
Modern Vintage Gamer's video of the exploit, which is amazing to see. I had no idea 360 softmods were a thing, and the exploit can run against a free trial version of a retail game, which is just chef's kiss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycY09EUm8wA
> Any Xbox 360 can now be hacked in less than one minute
> A look a the newest V1.2 Badupdate Exploit - Xbox 360 software only Hypervisor Hack that we covered back in March 2025. It requires an Xbox 360 - any model including the later Winchester revisions! A USB flash drive and Rock Band Blitz Trial. This updated 1.2 hack runs much faster and reliable and is now a recommended option to hack any Xbox 360. In today's episode we take a closer look at the BadUpdate V1.2 exploit.
What software are you using for this?
I'm not them, but I've had good success with ~20 year old CD-Rs using GNU ddrescue.
https://www.gnu.org/software/ddrescue/
Not everything was recoverable, but the vast vast majority was.
Not the parent, but I've been using Handbrake for DVDs and good old CD Paranoia for CDs.
MakeMKV
Likewise. UHD blurays are still quite common; perhaps not in physical stores so much, but that holds true for many products.
I'd say the article is largely correct, but I have at least one nitpick:
> ‘How do you burn a CD?’ It’s something that was common for us growing up, but that’s knowledge that’s being lost as everything is sort of transitioning to digital.”
This paragraph is using a colloquial but wrong definition of the word "digital" - in this context it seems to mean "online audio/video distribution".
This is wrong because CDs, by definition, hold digital data. Some of us who are old enough to have lived through the transition from unapologetically analog audio media - vinyl records and magnetic cassette tape - to digital, optical compact discs. That was the real transition to digital, not the transition from digital physical media to digital online downloads (both are still digital). Likewise, the transition from analog broadcast TV and analog VHS tapes to digital TV and VCD/DVD/BD was less than 20 years ago. (Side note: LaserDisc stores video analogly but audio digitally.)
Digital is a word that fundamentally contrasts with analog - where analog means infinite variation, no resistance to noise, and imperfect copies. Digital simply means being composed of integers, which further implies finite information and allows perfect copies.
The misuse of the word digital to mean superfluous things is a mockery to the monumental human achievement in inventing and perfecting digital machines and methods of storing/transmitting images and sounds, being much higher quality than previous analog technologies (e.g. photographic film) and allowing information to be delivered reliably across wider space and time.
Digital does not imply electronic, new and high-tech, virtual, or communications-based (as opposed to transporting matter-based recording media). Mechanical LEGO logic is digital. DNA is digital and very old. Alphabets are digital (we agree today there are exactly 26 letters in English). The telegraph network was digital and messages were relayed by humans. A "virtual" meeting involving digital videoconferencing could just as well be held using analog NTSC video channels; the fact that digital technology happened to be used doesn't define the virtual meeting. "Digital marketing" is understood as doing business on the web/Internet through electronic online communications, but I could argue that a paper brochure designed on a digital computer is also "digital marketing".
Languages change over time.
A journalist making a mistake != language change
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/digital
Which of these definitions means "fancier than what the speaker grew accustomed to during their formative years from 10-30 years old"?
Vernacular shifts as society and technology change. As evidence, it doesn't seem like you or GP misunderstood the journalist's meaning. This is pedantry.
Applying wrong definitions results in confusion and contradictions.
If "digital" means "by means of communication rather than delivering physical objects", then a digital camera held in your hand is not "digital". (But operating someone else's camera over the Internet would be a "digital camera".) Conversely, receiving music over analog FM radio would be "digital" because the information came from far away.
If "digital" means electronic, then printing a black-and-white QR Code (which is clearly made of discrete squares) onto paper makes that paper image not "digital". DNA with its 4 possible base pairs would not be digital. Doing accounting with pen and paper, involving discrete numbers, would not be digital. Moreover, an electronic computer made of analog capacitors, resistors, transistors, and op-amps - and with a continuous range of input and output values - would be classified as "digital" under this definition. On the other hand, sending 0s and 1s as photons in a fiber-optic cable would not be considered digital as the signal is not electrical or electronic in nature.
If "digital" means high-tech, then inventing an analog computer chip in the year 2026 would be considered more "digital" than conventional digital computer chips invented in the 1970s. (This isn't theoretical; there are researchers working on analog computers for neural networks to save die area and power consumption.)
By misusing definitions for "digital", things that are not digital get misclassified as digital, while things that are digital get misclassified as non-digital.
The only correct definition of digital with respect to information technology is the involvement of numerical digits. Everything else are qualities associated with popular digital systems, but are not fundamental definitions of digital systems.
Pure pedantry. The meaning in context was clear to a reasonable fluent reader such as yourself. Instead of focusing on pedantic form, I suggest focusing on the intent and content of TFA: Is physical media cool again and if so, why.
That doesn't mean new language can't be critiqued.
Are they really blaming anyone? This is a good thing, but it's destined to remain pretty niche. The vast majority of people do what's easiest and what everyone else is doing. They like streaming and watch whatever is put on their home screen. Tons of people watched Electric State, Red Notice, The Tomorrow War. Citadel got a season 2.
Some people used to have the TV running constantly, solely as "background noise", without any interest in what's on screen. Those same people will likely also prop up viewer or listener numbers for literally whatever the streamer put up on screen next. But this does not tell you anything about the actual interest in the media.
Right. At least with cinema it takes a certain amount of intention to choose to go out and see something. Not that there aren't successful bad movies anyway, but at least the audience has agency.
It’s not physical media, but I’ve been buying iTunes copies of Movies and TV Shows instead of streaming. I feel it’s better to own my favorite classics from the golden age of film and tv vs paying by the month for the latest stupid remake. It’s a huge shift from how I felt a few years ago.
> own my favorite classics
Does apple say you own them, or does it say "you are licensing the content" like amazon says with kindle books?
I would say that my experience purchasing stuff from Apple iTunes/TV and Amazon Kindle is that they generally don't cheat you.
I think the convenience is worth the risk.
Tell that to say, Target. They got rid of DVDs in their stores. although strangely I saw them selling vinyl albums.
Odds of Limited Run Games-style "exploitation" of this trend? That was already concerning for games.
Didn't disney do that? Decades ago they would have various movies available on DVD only at certain times, then they would be pulled.
I didn't have Disney Vault thing in mind when I came up with that. LRG's (and similar companies) schtick was that they're semi-upfront about pandering to collectors, especially with the extra goodies (sometimes of varying quality when they finally delivered).
EDIT: Especially for physical releases of streaming-only shows/films, since these companies mainly do that for digital-only games.