That claim isn't true. There are games that are not provided with a physical copy (i.e. Beatsaber for PSVR, Quest for Booty-Rachet and Clank, etc)

Also, I'm sure there are other Hulu, Netflix, Prime excluses that won't make it to the physical market.

----

This still avoids the main issue here: It's the right of ownership of the copy. Having a digital copy, in it's current state, prevents you from transferring it to others. Amazon's ebooks have the option for lending, but you're still reliant upon Amazon's "holy permission" to do that. (They can reascend it at any time). With physical mediums the original creators cannot prevent you from reselling what you own. (They can try.. but often times they've failed)

These are not a small number of counterexamples, these are patterns that are pervasive throughout modern media distribution. Let's look at Star Wars as an example. I bought a Star Wars box set and I can't watch it on my computer without installing malware. I can't play "Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order" without installing malware. I can't watch the new Clone Wars or Mandalorian show without paying for yet another streaming service. "Think of the content creators" is the new "think of the children". It's not my fault that every aspect of our culture is for sale to the highest bidder; my rights matter more than the profit margin of faceless megacorporations and as long as they engage in these unethical business practices I will not give them my money. Piracy is civil disobedience.

"Civil disobedience" is a rather grandiose way to dress up not paying for things you use because the person who owns them didn't sell them exactly the way you wish they did. You're not marching in the streets, you're watching TV.

I don’t buy movies on dvd or Blu-ray any more. But I still lend access.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that if I watch a movie that I like, I should purchase it again on physical media just to loan it. And that my friend should buy a DVD player just to watch a borrowed movie.

If I’ve bought it once digitally, I will make copies and lend them to friends. Or more specifically, I’ll give them a login to my private Plex server.

I agree that the statement "Physical copies don't exist for digital media" is false (And I wasn't trying to assert that, of which I could have been more explicit), time of release aside. I can still hold the above position and not be in conflict with that, though.

The issue we saw is that there is no way to legally lend a digital resource to someone else, which is a constructed limitation. Lending here involves two things, one is that the resource is exclusive and the other that it has the same traits as the original good. In crux, why do an illegal, but "not as bad" thing when there is no legal difference -- just do the illegal thing at that point.

This is how torrenting, piracy, and account sharing became normative. Access to digital goods was restricted further than physical goods, meaning that as content moved to digital first, there was a dissonance between worlds (This is where all the "First Sales Doctrine" litigation tens of years ago comes from). When that dissonance was resolved in favor of businesses, we adjusted via legal brinksmanship -- wherein we said "This is normal behavior, but if you're calling it abnormal and illegal I'll just do the actually illegal thing because it doesn't matter anymore".

I have a library card, where I borrow exclusive, digital copies of a resource for a reasonable price (If we snake a path between my taxes and the library service). I think this system is great, even though it has just the same properties as physical lending has. It is when properties are lost inexplicably that you see new, emergent behavior.

Once again, I understand that this isn't widely accepted view point in some circles and that you may just fundamentally dislike it. I know that behavior might be illegal by US code, but the nature of something being illegal is that it is illegal because it is an accessible possibility. We create laws to inhibit possible behavior, and, in this case, many of us have just said "I don't care" to these laws in a similar way to jaywalking or speeding.

> Access to digital goods was restricted further than physical goods

You only have two choices as a rights holder when it comes to digital works; much less sharing or much more. There's no workable digital equivalent of the kind of sharing limits imposed by having to move a physical thing from one place to another. In order for sharing to be viable with digital versions the DRM would need to be much more sophisticated, or the prices would need to be much higher.

Edit: if you want a concrete example of the harm caused by this attitude, go look into why there's no HD remaster of DS9 or Babylon 5. The studio broke down sales figures for previous SciFi remakes and then the degree to which those shows are torrented. If even an appreciable fraction of the freeloaders ever actually bought the discs, then it would be worth it to make one. You don't, so they don't.