Disney Removed 50 Titles to Justify Higher Prices

In 2019, Disney stopped making physical media the default distribution method and switched entirely to streaming-first releases.

That same year, the company raised Disney+ prices from $6. 99 to $13.

This is not negligence. This is strategy. Follow the person who benefits—Netflix makes $15 billion annually from subscribers paying for exclusive access to content that cannot be purchased, rented, or inherited.

The mechanism is precise. Studios reduced preservation investment not because they lacked the technology or funds, but because accessible physical media competes with subscriptions. A used Blu-ray of The Mandalorian season one costs $8 and can be watched forever without payment. That same content on Disney+ requires an active subscription—the math is direct.

The studios quantified what a permanent library was worth to them. It was less than the recurring revenue from people who cannot opt out because the alternative is unavailability. This explains the timing, the acceleration after 2015 when streaming licensing became the dominant revenue model. Why restoration projects slowed. Each loss is a feature, not a bug.

This teaches an important lesson about your own judgment. Pay attention when someone tells you an institution cannot preserve something, especially when they profit from that thing being lost. Negligence is passive. This is active. The next time you hear that some archive is deteriorating or some service is shutting down, ask who specifically is better off if it vanishes. That answer tells you everything about whether preservation will actually happen.