Currently, there are a variety of options available to use productivity software, access pictures or videos, or play games without actually owning
physical media. These two ways to consume media are not actually that different considering the “owner” actually does not own the physical product.
The user only holds a license to use the instance of the commercial work and is not entitled to use it in perpetuity. Ownership is actually used to describe the ability to use a product. Where they differ is access. A streaming service can stop offering the songs that you want to hear, a game you want to play, and a cloud drive provider can lower available storage space or otherwise change terms and conditions that relate to the service. The cloud provider could even go out of business or change its business practices in regards to the service due to merger and acquisitions within that particular industry.
Is one better than the other? Media as a service models may appear cheaper in some ways because the cost can be reduced when looking at the amount per month versus a lump sum. For example, here is a comparison: $69.99 versus $5.99 for 12 months. It looks cheaper but the service model is slightly higher. The provider would probably state that this is a 12 month agreement, but even if they did not, the end user will leave the arrangement without a tangible product in hand.
There may even be no initial cost with the provider finding other ways to monetize the relationship with the customer. Monetization can take the form of stored telemetry data that can be sold to marketers or even details just short of personally identifiable information that would be very valuable to information brokers and advertisers. Another consideration is the potential for persistent direct and or indirect costs of use versus having a copy. There may be a monthly fee with the ability to purchase add-ons, ads, fees to remove ads, or both. There may also be marketing considerations where the user may be required to consent to soliciting and location marketing.
When it comes to physical media, the end user can use it until there is no longer a device that can play the media or the media is no longer readable. This does not mean that the software will stay patched in perpetuity, receive performance updates, etc. If it breaks and there is no copy, then that is a problem now isn’t it? Content providers may offer new and innovative ways to interact with or use media, but the physical copy is limited to the functionality that was available at the time of purchase or delivery.
Although it is not quite like comparing live theatre to printed versions of the play itself, there is still the point of contention of ownership. The reader has the book and can read it whenever they chose. An audience guest will only have the one engagement but a lifetime of memories. Tangible and non-tangible (unless there are mementos), flexibility versus accessibility, this is probably going to be a generational discussion that will continue for some time to come.
