> Millennials, however, use physical media all the way... They have huge DVD collections

As a millenial, I have to say this statement could hardly be more misleading. Millenials I know may have DVD and even VHS collections, but that's only because these media are effectively "dead," so used items can be had for free or cheap via thrift stores. (Remember that we're young and (mostly) poor; these simple facts explain 99% of so-called "generational trends.")

Other physical media (viz., vinyl records) are typically kept around for nostalgia/display value. Someone who has a record on vinyl might listen to it more often as an MP3 or stream--but those things don't fulfill the universal human need to put all the stuff you like on a shelf.

> and even where they don't they accept only DRM'ed, thoroughly walled gardens where you can rent stuff for a limited time and those companies only allow you to consume things in a very restrictive manner.

Ah, so you're saying millenials don't use the kind of digital media that squares with your politics! Fascinating, tell me more. But this is the simplest thing in the world to explain: people don't actually want to own media. We want to (1) access it when we want to experience it, and (2) signal to others that we like it. Streaming solves the first problem easily and cheaply. Occasional physical purchases solve the second problem.

Regarding DRM'd streaming in particular, do you know how many hours of my life I sacrificed in the early 2000s hand-editing MP3 tags, copying files between devices, etc.? Neither do I, and I don't want to know because I'm sure it was obscenely high. I would gladly pay Google Play twice the $10/month I pay them so that I will never to have to return to those dark times. And I feel similarly about Netflix.

If for some reason my streaming services don't have a piece of media--or if I need something they do have in DRM-free form--I can torrent it or (vomit) purchase it from Amazon/iTunes. Honestly, it's a beautiful system--I get so much for so little. It feels like the exact opposite of a "loss of capability."

But this isn't an "I love Big Brother" moment. I accept the system only because I always have the option to pirate what I need. That's why I don't see DRM as the problem. DRM can never eliminate piracy due to the "analog hole." Law enforcement, the courts, and Big Content could do a lot more to crack down on it though. That's why, on the one hand, I really won't lift a finger to do anything about DRM, but on the other hand, I'd be willing to expend a lot of energy opposing any law that would further empower copyright owners. That's why I've donated to the Pirate Bay. Etc.

If you want to take the discussion in a more idealistic direction, I think reducing the copyright term to 15-20 years would be a much more important change than anything else I've discussed. And unlike anti-DRM activism, copyright term reform is something that almost anyone can understand and relate to.

> they mostly only read paper-based books

Did you RTFA? The whole thing is about why books are an exception. No one is concerned with "reading comprehension" when it comes to music or movies. Psychologists in TFA appear to be saying--and I agree--that our comprehension and retention of long-form printed material is facilitated in subtle ways by the physicality of books.

TL;DR if the system stays as open as it is today, I think digital media are clearly succeeding. In a context where Netflix is one option among several, it's a godsend. In a context where it's the only option, I think you have a better case--but we can prevent things from deteriorating to that point.