A persistent cry echoes through discussions driven by luddite elitists with no understanding of capitalism: “Buy physical media.” It makes sense to be wary of digital monopolies, the ephemeral nature of online content, and the devaluing of artistic labor. But that isn’t why people say, “Buy physical media.”
This refrain reflects a deeper misconception about market dynamics and technological progress. Many believe that by purchasing physical copies, they can influence what gets made, relying on the belief that consumer demand drives supply — and it doesn’t. Moreover, the push for physical media is regressive, resisting the natural progression of technological advancements. Clinging to physical media in the digital age is like advocating for the return of the horse-drawn carriage.
The real issue is not choosing between physical or digital media but who controls either. Progress lies not in simply retreating to outdated mediums but in liberating new technology, working to make it serve the public good rather than corporate interests.
Demand Doesn’t Drive Supply
At the heart of the “buy physical media” slogan lies a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalist markets operate. Many assume that by expressing a demand – purchasing something – consumers can dictate what is produced and preserved. This perspective hinges on the belief that demand straightforwardly influences supply, a notion that Karl Marx critiqued extensively.
In a capitalist economy, production is not simply a response to consumer demand but is driven by the profit motives of those who control the means of production. Capitalists invest in production based on potential profitability, not direct consumer needs or desires. This results in commodities being produced primarily to generate surplus value rather than to meet the actual demands of consumers.
Central to Marx’s analysis is the concept of “socially necessary labor time” — the amount of labor required to produce a commodity under average production conditions and with average skill and intensity. This concept underscores that the value of commodities is rooted in labor, not consumer demand.
Thus, the decision to produce a commodity is anchored in the labor required for its production rather than the consumer demand.
How Capitalist Production Works (Partly)
To understand why demand does not drive supply in large-scale industry, I think it’s useful to show why and how supply could/would be driven by demand.
In a simpler or localized situation, where supply chains and production orders are not factors, we might observe demand driving supply. For instance, if a town did not have stores that receive food shipments, it might instead rely on a local farm. The aggregate need of the community’s size would influence how much a farmer would cultivate.
However, this is not how most of the American economy works. Instead, products are produced based on weighing production costs vs. hypothetical manufacturing of demand via advertising. Why does a bad movie get made with no demand for it? Why does a bad movie make money when no one likes or cares about it? Because demand is an afterthought! It is to be marketed into existence after the fact.
Capitalists do not produce goods just because there is a demand; they produce them if they believe it will result in profit. Was there a demand for fidget spinners? No! But the people behind it believed they could market one into existence and did just that.
This fetishization of physical media hinges on the idea that purchasing a DVD or a vinyl record can significantly alter media production. It is another form of “ethical consumption,” a comforting illusion but ultimately one that is self-centered and myopic. If “ethical consumption” made any difference, vegan food wouldn’t be a secondary market that primarily taps into a higher income bracket demographic’s sense of superiority to manufacture demand on a niche product with a higher margin.
Physical media production is subject to the same dynamics as any other commodity. Even if a niche market for physical media exists, it does not disrupt the overarching capitalist imperatives that dictate production on a larger scale.
Marx’s critique highlights that the relationship between supply and demand is mediated by the capitalists' pursuit of profit, not by the direct desires of consumers. Therefore, believing that buying physical media can shape production overlooks the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism. Instead, it’s essential to recognize that true change comes from challenging the profit-driven nature of production and advocating to prioritize the public good over corporate interests – the interests of the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie.
Technological Regression vs. History
Insisting on physical media is also technologically regressive. Humanity has continually evolved its methods of storing and sharing information — from oral traditions to written manuscripts, from print to digital. Each transition has brought about greater accessibility and efficiency. Clinging to physical media in the digital age is akin to advocating for the return of the horse-drawn carriage in the era of electric cars.
One might like “the old ways” better, but rarely do they persist as anything more than justifying ideology. The push for physical media can inadvertently support the structures digital media’s critics purport to dislike. Physical media has become a boutique market, which means appealing to one’s sense of priority rooted in tradition for traditions’ sake to siphon larger margins from “limited runs” and “collector’s editions” that sell at a premium. Temporarily embarrassed leftist millionaires use it to hawk their “misunderstood,” “underground” (read: bad) art. Larger entities cater to these pretentious pricks to extort high margins while maintaining control over digital content, which is how most people prefer to watch stuff.
Why? Because digital content is better. It looks better, doesn’t need to be rewound, doesn’t degrade when you play it, dust doesn’t affect it, etc. The problem isn’t “digital media,” it’s class rule.
Digital media is stored in a server farm. The person or group that owns these servers can dictate everything that happens to and with this digital media. Legally speaking, the arrangement isn’t different from when the media was stored physically in one’s home. Read the license at the beginning of any video tape or DVD; you do not own that movie. You own the tape it is on.
The problem that arises from digital media is not simply that it is digital, that it doesn’t exist on a shitty medium that degrades over time. That is its advantage. The problem with digital media is that it is no longer stored in your home, and that license affords its legal owners much more leeway to revoke the media and do what they want with it.
Instead of retreating into the past, we should focus on liberating digital media rather than ethically consuming physical media. This means advocating for:
Open Access: Supporting platforms and initiatives providing free and open digital media access (like Archive.org), ensuring that content remains accessible and resistant to censorship.
Ending Digital Rights Management (DRM): With an endgame of ending intellectual property (IP), pushing for legislation and technological solutions that protect consumers’ rights to use and share digital content without restrictive DRM practices.
Fair Compensation for Creators: Ensuring the people doing the work are rewarded for it is more important than how someone watches something.
Conclusion
The call to “buy physical media” is entirely rooted in a misunderstanding of how capitalist markets function and an outdated, commodified nostalgia for traditional media forms. While it is understandable to be wary of digital monopolies and the fleeting nature of online content, a Luddite reaction is not the solution.
The real challenge lies in the contradiction in our current production model, which opposes open access, fair compensation for creators, and eliminating restrictive digital rights management practices. Physical media not only doesn’t address this but ultimately reinforces it by obfuscating the real issues.
Clinging to outdated mediums and methods is often the result of Platonic elitism and hinders the democratization of art and society in general. Digital media is amazing; why shouldn’t it work for everyone (and against no one)?