Digital Media Ownership
Take the Nintendo Switch 2. It's the fastest-selling game console ever, but its physical games come with an interesting quirk. Some of these come how you'd expect. They've got a game cartridge inside. Plug it in, play. Some of these other ones say "game key card", meaning there's just an empty cartridge inside. You've got to take it home and download all the files yourself before you can play. These empty carts will be useless if Nintendo's servers ever go down, or the company decides to stop serving up the game files. And some people see this as yet another step towards paying for access to content that we don't get to keep.
PERSON: Most things we have are downloaded now, like Netflix has pretty much everything now. But we still have DVDs that we use like on special occasions when Netflix doesn't have it and stuff.
PERSON: I think when I was young there were DVDs here and there. But most of my life that has been streaming.
PERSON: Sometimes I watch movies on DVD that I like can't find on streaming and usually get those from the library, but other than that music, most of other stuff it's streaming.
PERSON: I only watched DVDs as a kid but now I just do streaming media like Netflix and Disney Plus.
(0:10:35) I've gotten rid of all my physical stuff. Because I collect comics and I read lots of books and used to have lots of DVDs and yeah I've replaced all of it. It's like, it's just too cumbersome.
DR KATE SANSOME, UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE: So like historically, you would have say a collection of DVDs and books and CDs in your cabinet at home. And now it's all just like online media libraries and the majority of the time people are just subscribing to streaming services to get access to digital media.
Dr Kate Sansome is a researcher who's very interested in this stuff.
Does anyone ever say, "Kate, you're looking Sansome today"?
KATE SANSOME: No, I've never heard that before.
That's the first time?
And she reckons there's a few key reasons our digital entertainment has changed so much in recent years.
KATE SANSOME: And the first one is probably the most obvious and that's just like technological innovation. So we now have like cloud computing. So these services like Netflix and Spotify, they can provide like cloud-based computing where you can access really large libraries. And so now you can access these media libraries from like your phone or your car or on your TVs.
KATE SANSOME: The second one is in response to the global financial crisis in 2007 where you saw like a real shift in consumption towards like this access-based consumption. So historically you might have gone on to iTunes and maybe have bought like an album for $15. If you've got like a competitor, like Spotify, that's a much more attractive offering, if you can pay $15 and get a huge library of music
KATE SANSOME: And I guess the third one is around piracy.
Because you wouldn't steal a car.
KATE SANSOME: Yes. Again, around that time, a lot of people were pirating movies and TV shows. And so if these kind of companies were able to offer a cheaper subscription-based model where it's really convenient, you can have easy access then that's like one way to kind of deter people from stealing media online.
So while new digital platforms can be cheaper for consumers and make more money for entertainment companies, they also take away some of the control and ownership that we used to have. Because with ever-changing licenses and agreements, shows and movies on streaming sites and digital stores can sometimes simply disappear.
PERSON: In the back of my mind, I'm a bit concerned by it. Like I hate to think how much music I've bought and movies through like Apple Music. If that ever disappeared, I'd be a lot of money out.
PERSON: I feel like we're sort of losing ownership of what we can actually watch, because we don't really own the shows and movies that we buy. And now it's just like if it disappears from streaming, you can't watch it again, or you can hope that you can watch it again.
PERSON: We're just losing the preservation of all this art by going digital, digital, digital and things that aren't making money are getting cut off. So I think, yeah, we're losing art. We're losing people's talent and losing people's work.
KATE SANSOME: It should be much more transparent to the consumer. There is some changes in the law like in overseas, in California. They've just introduced a bill where streaming services or like video game providers, they have to actually disclose that it's a license and they're not actually buying. And then there are some platforms like Steam have just started to change the language there so that it says you're renting a license and you're not actually buying a product.
Some concerned customers are turning to alternative online stores, which remove restrictions and theoretically let you keep your purchase forever. And others are turning back to good old-fashioned reliable physical media.
PERSON: This is why we need DVDs, because like once something goes off Netflix or something like that, we're not going to be able to watch it ever again. So it's good to have it physical and now you don't have any DVD shops anymore and it's just sad that we're losing that.
There are some DVD shops, I'm inside one right now, right?
STEPHEN VINCENT ZIVKOVIC, GALACTIC VIDEO: Right. Galactic Video has been here for 30 years, and we've got no plans to go anywhere anytime soon. People like to pick up a DVD or Blu-ray, it's a tactile experience. There are also a lot of films and TV shows that are not available on streaming services but they have been released onto physical media in the past. So our customers come in and rent or buy those.
Now I'm in a different shop. For much of the 20th century, records were the way to listen to recorded music. And a lot of people just like holding them, and looking at them! This is a real thing no one can take away from me.
SHOP ATTENDANT: Are you going to pay for that?
Probably not.
Vinyl records started to fall out of fashion in the 80s as smaller, cheaper CDs arrived. Then in the noughties, iPods, with their capacity for 1,000 songs. But in the age of streaming, vinyl records have actually made a huge comeback. Here in Australia, vinyl sales have been growing consistently for the past decade.
KATE SANSOME: We do have like a vinyl player at home, like a record player at home, so I don't often listen to it, but I will just have it kind of like shown on the shelf.
Today over 90% of video games sold and music listened to is digital. But while it may seem that the ease and value of digital platforms has won out, not necessarily. Printed books are still more popular than ebooks.
PERSON: I think it's all going to be digital one day. Not that we necessarily want it to be, but that's just the way the world's heading. We literally saw a video of this girl and her older sister gave her a DVD and she had no idea what it was. So it's not looking promising.
PERSON: I feel like it'll come back again. Because these days people are very into DVDs again.
PERSON: It's like with streaming, everything is locked behind a paywall, so DVDs are always just the best option.
PERSON: I think like records and stuff like that, I think that's coming back because it's more of a novelty. But I think that due to its lack of accessibility, it's probably gonna continue to be wiped out, I think.
PERSON: I'm mainly just stick mine on the wall, but I'm thinking about getting some worthwhile ones and just getting a vinyl player cause it's just whilst you have like Spotify and Apple music like that's OK, but it's always good to just have the sincerity of an actual physical music player.
PERSON: Having the digital version of everything available, it makes the actual music and videos all lose value. Because if you can just have whatever you want, then what is even the point in it anymore, I think.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Australian
5 hours ago
- The Australian
Elon Musk's Tesla ordered to pay $375m in Autopilot case
The jury found Tesla's system partly responsible for a crash in Key Largo that killed Naibel Benavides Leon and injured her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, according to attorney Darren Jeffrey Rousso, a partner at the law firm that represented Angulo and Leon's family. The plaintiffs had alleged that Autopilot was to blame when driver George McGee's Tesla careened into a Chevrolet sport utility vehicle, killing Leon and injuring Angulo. The jury awarded $US200 million ($309m) in punitive damages, plus $US59 million in compensatory damages to Leon's family and $US70 million in damages to Angulo, according to court records. Since the jury assigned one-third of the blame to Tesla, whose CEO is billionaire Elon Musk, the compensatory damages will be reduced, Rousso said, with the total impact of the jury award totalling $US242 million after these reductions. 'Justice was done,' Rousso said. 'The jury heard all the evidence and came up with a fair and just verdict on behalf of our clients.' Tesla will appeal the decision, according to its defence attorneys. 'Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeapordise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' Tesla said through its legal team. 'The evidence has always shown that this driver was solely at fault because he was speeding, with his foot on the accelerator – which overrode Autopilot – as he rummaged for his dropped phone without his eyes on the road,' Tesla said. 'To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash. This was never about Autopilot.' Read related topics: Elon Musk Motoring From Pakistan's 'Eighth Wonder' to Romania's serpentine masterpiece, these five roads push drivers to extreme limits where altitude sickness is just the beginning. The Weekend Australian Magazine Simon Davidson has been photographing Australia's classic and custom car scene with an artistic eye for decades. He especially loves to shoot burnouts.

News.com.au
6 hours ago
- News.com.au
Hollywood's richest actress Jami Gertz spotted looking unrecognisable
Eighties actress Jami Gertz has been spotted looking unrecognisable years after she ditched Hollywood and became a billionaire. Gertz acted in 1980s classics like The Lost Boys and Sixteen Candles, and also made an appearance in the original Twister in the 90s. She has since amassed an estimated USD$8 billion (AUD$12.5 billion) fortune, putting her ahead of Hollywood greats including Tom Cruise, Reese Witherspoon and Brad Pitt and making her the richest actor in the world. She was spotted this week having lunch at a private members' club that attracts some of Hollywood's most powerful elite. Gertz kept things low-key in a light blue blouse, white trousers and matching shoes as she chatted with a pal. The former Hollywood star worked as a child actress before scoring her breakthrough role the 1987 drama Less than Zero with Robert Downey, Jr. In 1989, Gertz married banker Tony Ressler who over the course of the following decade forged an incredibly lucrative career in private equity. Ressler co-founded Apollo Global Management in 1990, which has since gone on to be worth an estimated $125 billion. Seven years later, he launched a second firm, Ares Management, which also skyrocketed in success. The husband and wife duo have since collaborated on numerous business ventures, including Gertz's own production company, Lime Orchard Productions, which has developed movies including like Heretic, Dune: Prophecy and One Piece. In 2015, the couple then bought the NBA team the Atlanta Hawks for a reported $720 million. 'I get it,' she told Hollywood Reporter. 'It's not your everyday Hollywood actress tale.' 'Everyone thinks I married a rich guy. But I made more money — way more money — than Tony when I met him. I paid for our first house. I paid for our first vacation. I married him because I fell in love with him.' She went on to open up about quitting Hollywood, confessing that her duties with the Atlanta Hawks became too time consuming to juggle both careers. 'It just seemed like a natural moment for me to take a break from acting,' she said. 'It's hard to even say it out loud, because I love what I do. It's given me so many beautiful things in my life, taught me so many things about myself and the world around me.'

ABC News
7 hours ago
- ABC News
Tesla ordered to pay $375 million in fatal autopilot crash
Victims of a fatal 2019 crash caused by an autopilot failure in a Tesla Model S will receive $US243 million ($375 million) in damages after a jury found Elon Musk's electric vehicle company liable. Jurors in a Miami federal court on Friday, local time, awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon and her former boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, $US129 million in compensatory damages, plus $US200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33 per cent of the compensatory damages, or $US42.6 million. Jurors found the driver, George McGee, liable for 67 per cent, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. "Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans," Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries," he added. Tesla said it will appeal. "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology," the company said. Tesla shares fell 1.8 per cent on Friday, and are down 25 per cent this year. The plaintiffs had sought $US345 million in damages. Their lawyers said the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without going to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly. "It's a big deal," said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. "This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgement in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology." The verdict could also impede efforts by Mr Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles and robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly $US1 trillion market value hinges on Mr Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. The trial concerned an April 25, 2019, incident where Mr McGee drove his 2019 Model S about 100 kilometres per hour through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. Mr McGee had reached down to pick up a cell phone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Ms Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 23 metres to her death, while Mr Angulo suffered serious injuries. "We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash," said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. "The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software," he said. "That's a big deal." Tesla, in its statement, said Mr McGee was entirely at fault. "To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash," the company said. "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver — from day one — admitted and accepted responsibility." Reuters