Paper and film are fairly durable. They can be preserved without any maintenance for quite a long time.
Format obsolescence means that it can be hard to read old files. Sometimes, you need to track down a precise version of a program. The more tricky issue is that sometimes a file can render, but incorrectly on more modern versions.
Also, digital files require specialized software to read, whereas paper documents are immediately readable. Film is also readable to a certain extent without equipment.
Digital files might be deemed useless at some point in the future and dumped in the trash. Or there might not be enough money to transfer the files to a new medium.
Analogue files render incorrectly too; surfaces deteriorate - media rots, oxidises, decays.
I've got digital files from last millennium that have survived better than analogue ones - both written text and images. For the most important I've kept logical and physical redundancy (but not yet needed it); much harder to do with bulky physical media.
Libraries in my UK city, and across the UK, have been closed rapidly in the last few years - the materials are generally dumped/sold, but the data from all of them could be held in a small box (computer) with multiple redundant backups for the cost of a couple of magazine subscriptions. For one librarians wage this could all be easily shared with the entire web.
We, or at least I, am keen to hang on to some artefacts. But a lot of what we keep seems to be primarily useful for navel gazing.
In a video the media - the original film - is already just a copy of the original performance. Unless you are interested in the history of the physical media for it's own sake because it's unusual in some way I don't think it's the same thing. Is the media even the original negative that was in the studio? I don't think so.
When a robot/printer is able to make a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa down to the brush strokes, and we can experience it in VR without even needing the replica, the answer to your question might change for most works too.
(I find the idea of intentionally destroying the originals to be ludicrous, but hey, more future-proofing is always good)
What is it about original artwork that makes it so important as to need eternal preservation?
In David's case, maybe the fact that Michelangelo was able to carve it out of a fragile and partially sculpted block that at least two other great artists refused to use. It's an engineering feat at least as much as an artistic one.