You don't know what you've got till it's gone.

It’s sensible for businesses to shift from physical media sales. Per CNBC’s calculations, DVD sales fell over 86 percent between 2008 and 2019. Research from the Motion Picture Association in 2021 found that physical media represented 8 percent of the home/mobile entertainment market in the US, falling behind digital (80 percent) and theatrical (12 percent).

But as physical media gets less lucrative and the shuttering of businesses makes optical discs harder to find, the streaming services that largely replaced them are getting aggravating and unreliable. And with the streaming industry becoming more competitive and profit-hungry than ever, you never know if the movie/show that most attracted you to a streaming service will still be available when you finally get a chance to sit down and watch. Even paid-for online libraries that were marketed as available “forever” have been ripped away from customers.

When someone buys or rents a DVD, they know exactly what content they’re paying for and for how long they’ll have it (assuming they take care of the physical media). They can also watch the content if the Internet goes out and be certain that they’re getting uncompressed 4K resolution. DVD viewers are also less likely to be bombarded with ads whenever they pause and can get around an ad-riddled smart TV home screen (nothing’s perfect; some DVDs have unskippable commercials).

  • @dan@lemm.eeEnglish
    54•4 months ago

    Someone go make Steam for videos and I’ll pay for media again. My stipulations are:

    • Once I buy it, it’s mine forever (otherwise piracy is better)
    • The file is high quality, DRM free, and in a selection of standard formats (otherwise piracy is better)
    • I can redownload it from the service at any time (otherwise piracy is better)
    • I can get everything I want to watch (otherwise piracy is better)
    • SGGEnglish
      29•4 months ago

      Companies see that as a mistake. They want you on a subscription for life that they can arbitrarily change at any time.

      Profits not increasing enough for this quarter? Better cut content, increase prices, increase the number of ads.

      Profits increased amazingly this quarter? Better cut content, increase prices, increase the number of ads.

      Profits down? Better cut content, increase prices, increase the number of ads, and start adding extra paywalls to some content

      They want you to own nothing. Oh you unsubscribed? Sorry even the content you paid extra to unlock was only available while your subscription continued, you will need to start your subscription again and then pay to unlock the content again.

      A show isn’t popular enough? Better write it off, pull it from all distribution so you can claim it as a tax write off

      • @Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
        6•4 months ago

        I wouldn’t even mind the subscription if all the content was there reliably, and I only needed one.

        I subscribe to a music service, because all the music is there and it’s easier than swiping it.

        If I had to subscribe to four different ones to get access to all the artists I listen to, then I’d still be pirating that.

    • @Stovetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13•4 months ago

      Steam satisfies only your third point, though. Otherwise, no. You don’t actually own your Steam library, Steam itself is DRM, and it doesn’t have everything.

      • @dan@lemm.eeEnglish
        2•4 months ago

        I know. I changed the terms. Pray I don’t change them further.

      • @btaf45@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1•4 months ago

        I was pissed when suddenly I could no longer play any of my purchased steam games on my Windows 7 desktop that had all worked perfectly before. Eventually all your steam games are going to be unplayable on your current OS, and any game that is no longer profitable to support on the latest OS will be permanently unplayable. That’s why I always prefer to buy games on GOG over steam. When you buy a game on GOG you really do own the game forever.

    • @mrvictory1@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1•4 months ago

      FYI Steam had videos a few years ago, new purchases are discontinued but one can still playback their existing library.

      • @dan@lemm.eeEnglish
        3•4 months ago

        I won’t. “Copy protection” is much more about restricting and potentially even removing your access to something you’ve paid for than it is about preventing copying. I am not willing to buy something that can be revoked when alternatives are available.

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1•4 months ago

          Offline copy protection, like the copy protection in DVDs and Bluray, can’t be revoked, they’re literally designed to be static. It’s really not an issue since, given time, it’ll be cracked (and both are, I literally just finished ripping my collection). I’m fine with that form of copy protection, I’m not fine with online-only DRM because that’s totally revokable.

          • @dan@lemm.eeEnglish
            2•4 months ago

            Disagree. In order to keep those keys secure they can’t publish them, so they’ll have to license some sort of decryption chip. That just pushes the price up as some manufacturer ends up taking a cut from every player sale.

            Also means you can’t do what you want with it. You probably can’t play it on an open source device. Etc etc.

            • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1•4 months ago

              Sure, I’d need specific hardware to access the media, but after I rip it, I can access it anywhere. The benefit to me of something like a Bluray isn’t the disk itself, but being able to legally buy media and rip it to a digital format at home. That’s a legally gray area since breaking copy protection measures is technically a copyright violation, but there’s also legal protection for backing up media for personal use, so it’s a bit of a gray area.

              Given that there are no other legal or mostly legal alternatives, I’m satisfied with that as an option. Media companies rarely, if ever, go after people who rip media for personal use (probably because it’s not worth their time and it’s a legal gray area), so I’m okay with that status quo. If there were a legal option to get DRM-free media for offline use, I’d totally go for that. I tried that with streaming services, but the apps I used (Netflix and Disney+) failed when I actually needed them (my downloaded files “expired” on a trip when I didn’t have internet access), so that’s not going to work for me.

              If this legally gray area goes away and I can’t easily rip media into a DRM-free format for personal use, I’ll go back to the alternatives I used when I couldn’t afford physical media and Netfilx wasn’t yet a thing.

              • @dan@lemm.eeEnglish
                1•4 months ago

                Yeah I’m not paying for something and it still be illegal. I’d rather stick to piracy. I get your point and if it works for you that’s cool. But it’s not for me.

                A good usenet setup with the Arr stack can automatically download basically anything you want and costs tens of dollars per year to run with very little, if any risk. (have there been any prosecutions for people downloading from usenet?)

                With a little bit of work and an old computer for a server you can basically run your own automated piracy streaming service.

        • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2•4 months ago

          Not necessarily. DVDs and Blurays have copy protections, but they don’t require access to any servers. Online DRM sucks because if your internet goes out, their servers are having troubles, or they just shut down the servers for whatever reason, you cannot use your media.

          So I’m mostly fine with offline copy protections (someone will crack it eventually), I’m not okay with DRM that requires online access.