I'll contrast with other commenters here and agree with you. The notion that private ownership of the arts is a good thing is very much a modern idea born of ma

I'll contrast with other commenters here and agree with you. The notion that private ownership of the arts is a good thing is very much a modern idea born of mass production. Most people prefer paintings and sculptures to be in museums, and the notion that live performers of theater or opera could ever be "owned" is abhorrent. The best means of financing the arts has always been a membership or patronage model, which very much depends on recurring subscriptions. What streaming services have done is make patronage happen on a massive scale, the sheer volume of which ensures a stable stream of financing for content that has produced what many people call the Golden Age of Television. It's not all good; the fracturing of availability of content across streaming services impacts affordability, not to mention the return of regional releases impacts availability. Ideally copyrights would be shortened and there would be some kind of publicly funded streaming framework to provide free access to works that enter the public domain. But these are momentary challenges of what is a more widely successful model and improvement over what came before.