> If anything it's your own time and attention that is consumed when watching videos.

Yes. 'Content' certainly isn't consumed from the perspective of the content providers, who can keep streaming the same data until they choose not to.

[Edit] Hmmm. Consumption, in the sense of irreversibly using a one-time resource, is sort of relevant. Once I have consumed food, I cannot re-consume it (in it's original form). Using this meaning, however, I 'use' rather than 'consume' a physical book or other format where I have a physical copy of the data (e.g. in the form of a non-rented DVD or similar).

The novelty of such works, however, is consumed when seen for the first time. You can never see a work of art for the first time a second time. And that's important.

A big difference is that others can consume the same thing, a million content creators is more than enough to supply content to the entire world. There is no reason why consuming digital content should cost a significant part of your income when it is so cheap to produce at global scale.

But consummation of a marriage does not mean a cannibal feast.

The etymology of the words “consummate” and “consume” are completely different. The former is from con (altogether) and summa (sum total; taken from summa (highest supreme)): my interpretation is “union with god”. Which fits with its adjective definition: high degree of skill; complete or perfect. The later, to consume, is from con (altogether) but added to sumere (take up). And if someone were to altogether-take-up I would assume that there would be nothing left.

This is from the verb "to consummate", not the verb "to consume".

TIL that these two words do not mean the same thing.