Evolving access

I think you hit the nail on the head here, Bryan: these are all business decisions. And we as users/customers aren’t entitled to anything other than what is on offer. If you didn’t finance the movie, if you didn’t commission or build the platform, then you don’t have direct control over it. It’s not your property. You can only voice your opinion with your wallet and attention. If you don’t buy the Blu-Ray or subscribe to the service or load your code to the platform, then those entities are that less well off for it.

I think it’s important to also recognize that the media or service isn’t the only thing on offer. So too is convenience. Forgiveness for whatever offense you may take at the overall direction of a program is easier found when your life is generally made much easier and peaceful through these trades. You don’t have to labor to maintain a system or a media library or technology. You don’t even have to learn how. You just need to give our your credit card number and reap the benefits. Is tha a good in itself? I would say no, definitely not. I think there is much to be gained personally from investing yourself more fully in these spaces, so far as is reasonable. But I also know that’s not always an easy or realistic lift.

Again, I’m not saying that last item—or any one item—should be the be-all, end-all point here. The market is ever changing. How people view these questions will affect what wares and services are made available for purchase. Will everyone running out to buy Oppenheimer on 4K Blu-Ray change the minds at Best Buy and Target to continue to sell media discs in store? I doubt it. But if people maintain that enthusiasm broadly, then yeah, maybe. And will that in turn change minds at the studios to continue to produce that physical media at the levels they are now? Again, maybe. Until a future generation decides that’s not important to them or new technology skews the conversation convincingly in another way.

I don’t know. But it is interesting that you also raise the distinction between platforms and content creators. Those entities aren’t necessarily the same, but I suspect in most cases their fundamental interests align. They want to get the attention of the market. And they want their ownership/copyright stakes respected. That said, there very well could be some tensions between the two. Platforms are almost always going to want to sell their wares in a way that is financially beneficial and paves the way for future interest and sales. Content creators may simply want their voice and vision to be part of a larger conversation. The sales component for the later may be a more minimal concern in some cases. And the conversations about use, licensing, etc. of supplied content to platforms is also likely to be a space of contention.

Which, I suppose, is all to say that this is an open and ongoing debate that not only won’t but can’t be solved because the variables are constantly changing. From technology to personal values. We may be in a moment where access means ownership. Down the road that may no longer be the case. Or it may be a more nuanced distinction.