[openrisk]

since when is the "general public" arbiter of wisdom? The masses will embrace anything that smacks of short term convenience and will tolerate enormous amount of abuse because caring for anything actually requires effort. This starts with thinking, collecting objective information among the torrents of marketing and misinformation, agitating for your rights and (horror, horror) even sacrificing immediate gratification.

Because the general public "doesnt care" we are in a world you can own nothing, control nothing, repair nothing, keep nothing a secret, do nothing without going through gatekeepers. In short, idiocracy.

[infecto]

On the flip side, this is one of the best times for people who enjoy movies/media. I can purchase near almost any movie to my hearts content. Streaming is super convenient, I don't have to think about how to store the digital media. I don't need the physical media taking up space. Heck I even love to pay for a 24-48hour digital rental. I can spend $3-4 and get a movie to watch instantly. I don't care about DRM. Its of course not all rosy, there is some nostalgia from living in a world of constraints, having to go to the Blockbuster on a Friday to pick out a movie, looking back there was something nice about it, it built a ritual. DRM is not great and you run the risk that the vendor you purchased the media from might go out of business. I will take those and enjoy my near limitless potential library.

[openrisk]

> living in a world of constraints

kinda funny to think you are not subject to constraints when your access to the limitless potential library can be revoked at any moment.

pressumably you also don't own any house, car, books, clothes, etc. as that gives you limitless potential to rent stuff.

[infecto]

I already acknowledged that your at risk of the vendor going out of business or any other way, losing access to the content. Except for the outlier movie fanatic, its never been better for the consumer imo. I enjoy movies and watch quite a few and I think its fantastic how easy it is for me to rent and stream what I watch. I have no desire to buy a film. Even physical media, the cost of purchase and storing it is too high for me. I recognize that some people enjoy it but I don't believe the majority of the market does and I don't believe its fair to effectively call them sheep for believing that.

Unlike practically every example you provide, I am typically watching a film once. I may revisit it years later but I am not consuming it on a frequent basis.

[openrisk]

Anything streamed could also be delived as physical media at marginal extra cost, indeed for those that want it and can afford these few extra bucks. Actually on a lifetime basis and taking into account multiple viewings within family etc. it may even be advantageous. One can think many other use cases where having the media locally makes a difference. You are saying "it doesn't apply to me", which is fine, but it is hard to understand how not having an extra option is somehow better for everybody.

[infecto]

The marginal cost would be quite large because there are very few customers that want a physical disc.

I am not arguing that there should not be alternatives but rather customers don’t want those alternatives so the cost to make a dvd/Blu-ray for less than .1% of your market can be quite expensive.

[browningstreet]

They're not the arbiter of wisdom, they're the arbiter of commercial success & market viability, which is always a bell curve to the bottom (see Stanley Cups and cupcake, boba, and dumpling retail [in the US]).

I worked in the film industry, in DVDs, at the height of that market. Sales of DVDs tumbled. End of story. There was nothing for the studios to do because the ROI was dead, and their previous efforts (which were terrible natch) to manipulate the DVD market (cheaper, limited play product) were dumb.

DVDs were great, streaming ate their lunch.

Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological.

[openrisk]

> Calling capitalism's market economics an idiocracy is.. tautological.

Thats definitely not true. The most ardent and smart defender of markets argued that they operate and optimize within the boundaries that society decides. If you legislate that people should be able to repair, own, exchange etc. stuff then markets will deliver exactly that. If you let them race to the bottom thats also exactly what you will get.