[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.