It does distract from the total experience and enjoyment of the movie.
Licensing fees. I forgot about that.
But here's the thing, and I will make a distinction between a Ripper and a Pirate for the purpose of this post.
A ripper would be someone who copies a disk for his own collection, to be viewed a second time sometimes in the future.
A pirate would be someone who copies to put it on the internet for others to download.
I would argue that rentals are not for pirates. They are for rippers.
A pirate will never wait for a disk to become available as a rental because by that time nobody is going to download his movie. The pirates are in a competition to be the first or among the few first to publish it online. So these pirates buy the BD, and so they get the lossless audio and put it online. The studios lose.
A ripper pays for a rental. Watches it on his BlueRay player, then if he likes it and figures he might want to watch it again he'll rip a copy. Where's the lose for the studios here? The guy's decision to rent it again if he doesn't rip it, or to rip for his collection will have close to nothing to do with lossless or lossy audio. There's no money lose to the studios. He rented, he payed for it. That's all they can ask of him. He's a good customer. Why rob him of the full experience of the movie??? Makes no sense to me.
OK, cost of production? The cost of per disk. It's a one time fee for the one who buys it, and it's part of the total cost. But when they produce the rental, that disk is going to see a lot of customers. The cost of production is divided and I know that studios sell the rental disks for a much higher price. So where's the big issue here? People pay more to rent a BD. The cost should include the few cents of licensing per renter.
"The greatest thing about the internet, is that you can quote something and totally make up the source." - George Washington.