Looking through the closets of my home, I can still find stacks of DVDs and discs for PlayStation 2 and Wii games from my childhood collecting dust and bearing scratches representative of the care expected from a 6-year-old. I remember flipping through these piles with my brother, trying to figure out what film we would watch that night or where we put that game we really wanted to play. After finding them now, however, I simply go to my TV, turn on Netflix and watch Better Call Saul or Seinfeld without a DVD player.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F63eb6e93-b87e-4559-8a2a-1d1b3264e9df_612x408.jpeg)
Granted, I still buy movies on Blu-Ray, as well as physical copies of video games and music, but I certainly take advantage of the luxuries streaming services offer us. Being able to access almost any kind of entertainment media we want instantaneously is something impossible to imagine the industry without now. It’s also the precedent their parent companies want to keep us in. Massive companies like Disney and Warner Bros. are now able to have a tremendous level of control unthinkable with physical media, with retailers following their directives by ditching Blu-Ray and DVD sales altogether, the profit-over-care business style they have pushed is only becoming more dominant. This isn’t just about a general preference for physical media and having your favorite films lined up on a shelf either; it’s about the neglect for audiences and artists alike through how streaming services operate.
Alleged Unlimited Access
I praised just how accessible streaming has made entertainment, but its reality is far hazier than most think of it to be. To start, look no further than to Netflix, who had first set monthly fees at $7.99 in 2011. It seemed like a steal at the time, being able to watch a wealth of movies and shows for less than $100 a year. In the years since, this price for a standard plan has jumped to $15.
This isn’t uncommon in streaming, that being companies ballooning subscription prices in an effort to squeeze more money out of consumers and has been utilized by multiple streamers. Inflation is naturally part of this, but it’s necessary to factor in additional or premium-style plans, being the more expensive ones with additional benefits (Netflix’s currently being $23 a month) and cheaper options with advertisements tacked on, as well as the crackdown on password sharing so that only those paying them directly can use an account. The latter is especially important, as more individual viewers must shell out more to buy at least an ad-based subscription. That, or one person pays for the more exorbitant premium plan to allow multiple people to use one account.
Here, the more limitations on who can use an account, the better opportunities corporations have to maximize profits from either higher-priced plans and even cheaper options. It’s one that has worked too, as Netflix has garnered more than 9 million new subscribers since cracking down on password sharing and Disney has signaled an intention to follow suit with its own service Disney+. Yet the “access” these services pride themselves on is deeply hindered by such moves, taking advantage of their desire to simply watch what they please by earning as much money out of as many of them as possible. It’s only unlimited access for those who are willing and able to pay more. There is certainly a price for buying physical copies of films, music, and more, but there is far more control which the consumer has in being able to buy something and claim ownership on something one time for the media they want rather than constantly paying upwards for a service filled with entertainment they will never interact with. Not to mention the ability to easily give and sell Blu-Rays and DVDs to others, no password needed.
Another crucial aspect of this access debate, especially in relation to physical media, is internet. It’s common sense that streaming platforms require you to be online, but that’s easier said than done for most people not living in urban areas. Looking at broadband quality in the United States in particular, 65% of the nation’s counties fall below the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband standards with the vast majority of said areas being rural. For residents there, getting on Hulu and being able to watch without internet failure is easier said than done. With how limiting the internet can be in those areas, getting to watch your favorite shows is far more difficult.
This isn’t to say physical media is a perfect solution to these woes or ever has been, but it offers far more communities the ability to watch what they please without fear of not having adequate internet access. Blockbuster in particular had locations in many rural American communities and as the once dominant rental chain went under as streaming took over. How else were residents there supposed to watch the movies and shows they wanted to? Physical media is disappearing from store shelves as well because of streaming, so even their alternative is quickly becoming less feasible and soon these rural communities' only worthwhile option will be unreachable.
Simply put, this is the reality of how corporations have enforced streaming. It is inconsiderate of consumers, honoring only those most capable of paying more and disadvantaging the ones living paycheck to paycheck and leaving the majority of non-urban residents with far less of an ability to watch their favorite content. It shouldn’t be surprising that this is how they treat audiences either given how often they neglect the ones creating their programs.
Pay Cuts
Entertainment being a cutthroat industry is the worst kept secret imaginable. Corporations have found ways to make that more so with streaming services, mainly through denying creators profits. First, however, the value of physical media for those artists must be explored, because it was once a major factor in their profits. Even if a film flopped at the box office before the rise of streaming, those involved with making it still had a chance to make some decent money thanks to video and DVD sales afterward.
Today, that opportunity is far less realistic because of how streaming has replaced physical media’s market appeal. Not only that, but corporations are able to find many loopholes through streaming which allow artists to pay far less residuals to them. For television in particular, this has cost actors $170 million in network residuals because of the structure streaming has set forth because of how less frequent residual fees are compared to before.
It doesn’t help that streamers can skirt around these fees altogether by removing artists’ work from their platforms. That’s why shows and movies tend to disappear from streaming services, as seen with Westworld on Max and The World According to Jeff Goldblum on Disney+: companies want to avoid paying fees that are due to actors, writers and more for the work offered to them. The greed on display here should need no further explanation, as even with an already weaker model in place corporations are still desperate to keep as much for themselves as possible while the ones allowing for their success in the first place are left to struggle.
They’ve taken efforts to push back against this treatment, especially after the 2023 joint strike between Hollywood writers and actors. The actors branch (the Screen Actors Guild, or SAG) in particular won “substantial” bonuses on top of what they make from streaming residuals. However, this victory will not stop companies from working around the hard-won deal, as Apple and other streamers are already trying to find ways to pay less to stars of lesser watched movies and shows. This prioritizes currentA-list actors and punishes smaller ones trying to break through, further displaying the perpetual cycle in which streamers are intentionally intervening put themselves on top. It’s not about the entertainment or those who make it for them; it’s about what helps them raise their profits, which is all the more apparent in how willingly they allow art to become obsolete.
Lost to Time
I won’t pretend that I watched the TV series adaptation of Willow when it hit Disney+ in late 2022, but anyone should still be outraged at how quickly it was removed from the platform less than a year later for Disney to cut costs. Now, there is nowhere to watch the show.
Here is where the problem of streaming over physical media comes into play beyond just how manipulative it is of taking money from artists and consumers: the work the two create and engage with respectively is far more prone to being lost to time because of corporations’ indifference to keeping it around if it let’s them save money.
Spotify’s dispute with Neil Young is another pressing example, as he had his music removed from the platform over COVID-19 misinformation spread by their then-exclusive podcaster Joe Rogan. Young has since returned to Spotify following Rogan no longer being only on the streamer, but an alarming sign is present over what would happen to art over corporate greed. Spotify would have rather maximize their profits off of false narratives than ensure that Young’s work still has a place for millions to easily listen to.
Now imagine if this was a smaller artist protesting here. Someone already not well known suddenly leaves a massive platform, and there is now nowhere their work can be found. Especially with physical media not being as produced anymore, it’s very likely that this will be the case beyond an initial release. Streaming is trying to fill the shoes of physical media in ways it isn’t being utilized to, whereas a movie can be stored on a disc and a platform is more concerned with pushing something away for good for its own sake.
This also makes the prospect of a streaming platform shutting down a losing scenario for everyone because of how much media would be lost as a result. Even if Netflix ends up succumbing despite its recent surge since its password sharing crackdown, that means countless movies and shows would have nowhere to go. The only expectations are the ones they have had rare deals to have physical release for, including Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman and Jane Campion’s The Power of the Dog with the Criterion Collection. There is a serious factor physical media plays in allowing art to be discovered decades later, a benefit creatives without as much clout as Scorsese and Campion should all be able to have.
It’s also true that physical media can be ruined by bit rot—a slow deterioration of data stored on discs and more—it is undoubtedly a far more reliable long term solution solely because of the control it allows consumers to have over it. Burning a disc onto a hard drive is also an option to ensure something can get around to those across the world more easily long after its initial release, which could even provide a great partnership with streaming in allowing lesser accessible media to have somewhere for people to watch it. This isn’t the case for the large part, however. Companies are concerned only with controlling how something is watched and how they can make more money, placing the art last.
In Conclusion
In looking back to my initial stance, it’s difficult not to see the irony in me watching something on streaming after leaving old discs to continue sitting untouched. Yet it’s a situation many likely relate, as they simply want to watch the films and shows they love, as much as they dislike the structure surrounding it. This is simply the unfortunate reality currently dominating the entertainment industry, where it’s hard to hunt down what you want to watch or listen to without a streaming service and having to enjoy it in the over-saturation of the internet.
Physical media still offers an alternative which many—myself included—keep around, but it is hard to rely fully on with how much more accepted streaming has become. Yet with how corporately-run platforms like Netflix and Disney+ are run, it’s no wonder we won’t stop buying Blu-Rays, vinyls or physical copies of video games anytime soon.
Great article Aiden. As a solid Gen-Xer who went to "computer camp" in the 80s, I can relate easily to this 20's conundrum of how to enjoy media in the least expensive and most accessible way possible. I have some antique booths as well, and you are right, the DVD's and vinyl fly off the shelves. Keep up the great writing and critical thinking--and I hope you are your brother can go back to the DVD's of yore occaisionally. And more importantly, that you can spend time together, even if it is just reminiscing the good old days of old timey media.