Mass Market DVDs Are Dead: Long Live Heritage Physical Media(variety.com)
variety.com
Mass Market DVDs Are Dead: Long Live Heritage Physical Media
https://variety.com/2024/film/global/heritage-physical-media-locarno-film-festival-1236105213/
10 コメント
You were already downloading movies in the 90s? What kind of bandwidth did you have?
I think that he meant that pirating nowadays is as easy as it was to rent a physical tape or disc in a rental shop in the 90s.
I downloaded movies in the late 90s on a 56k modem. The movies were generally compressed to fit on one or two writable CDs, you can download 700MB easily overnight (about 3.5 hours if your ISP is good). The quality was much worse than what we're used to now though.
700 MB with 56K would be closer to something like 30 hours. But yeah, doable.
I was lucky to have symmetric 512KB/sec from about 1997 on, but even before that the most dedicated sort of nerd could definitely download ~700MB movies over 56K with some effort..
ok that is pretty fast for that time (I assume it’s kbps, not kBps), I still remember feeling like on a highway when I got my 128 kbps with ISDN
More likely music. I do remember a few people with dsl or isdn at home, t1 at work.
It took a week or so on 56k and later ISDN, but, sure. :)
There weren't any movies to download (besides porn clips) in the ISDN days and your hard drive probably wasn't big enough to hold a movie.
There were in the very late 90's, and lots of us were still on dial-up/ISDN at that time. They were usually in asf, rm, avi, or mov format, and were incredibly low quality. This is around the time we were using invite-only FTP servers to share stuff.
I remember downloading the Star Wars Phantom Menace trailer in QuickTime format (because the RealPlayer version was so bad) and even that took quite a while, even though it was only a trailer.
> invite-only FTP servers
The PC plebs might have been, but us Mac people had the glorious hotline community..
The PC plebs might have been, but us Mac people had the glorious hotline community..
Are you searching subscription streaming services or digital movie rental/purchase services?
You can basically find any movie for rent/purchase on Apple TV Store (formerly iTunes Movies) or Vudu or whatever other similar service you want to choose from. They’re just not included with your Netflix/Max/Hulu subscription, which are the modern equivalent to basic cable. They may be on streaming services but only included on a rotating basis.
This “no one will sell it to me for a reasonable price” thing is kind of BS. You’re just not willing to pay at all, or you’re only willing to pay basic cable price for access to a catalog with a size that doesn’t fit that price.
It’s fitting then that the rental and physical media market collapsing now stops entire genres of movies from being made. As an example, people don’t rent comedies anymore, so they don’t get made and put into theaters.
You can basically find any movie for rent/purchase on Apple TV Store (formerly iTunes Movies) or Vudu or whatever other similar service you want to choose from. They’re just not included with your Netflix/Max/Hulu subscription, which are the modern equivalent to basic cable. They may be on streaming services but only included on a rotating basis.
This “no one will sell it to me for a reasonable price” thing is kind of BS. You’re just not willing to pay at all, or you’re only willing to pay basic cable price for access to a catalog with a size that doesn’t fit that price.
It’s fitting then that the rental and physical media market collapsing now stops entire genres of movies from being made. As an example, people don’t rent comedies anymore, so they don’t get made and put into theaters.
>people don’t rent comedies anymore, so they don’t get made and put into theaters
What an odd spin.
People don't rent comedies anymore because there are no comedies made anymore for you to rent.
And nobody's making comedies anymore because present day people are too easily offended by everything and raise hell on Twitter out of every joke.
What an odd spin.
People don't rent comedies anymore because there are no comedies made anymore for you to rent.
And nobody's making comedies anymore because present day people are too easily offended by everything and raise hell on Twitter out of every joke.
I think there is still a market for the old offensive comedies. There are comics out there who simply don’t care about getting cancelled, and it seems their audiences are big enough where the people complaining don’t matter.
The number of people willing to speak up to support the right for people to make and enjoy movies, or content in general, that is offensive seems to be growing.
Spotify kept Rogan and dumped the employees complaining about him. Netflix backed Chappelle with his specials. Eminem’s latest album debuted at #1. South Park is still going strong.
The people raising hell on Twitter were never the audience, so it really doesn’t matter what they think. They should be making things for the people who are going to pay.
Disney has been trying to please all those people and there stock has tanked. All I hear are people complaining about their various franchises and how they suck now. I guess those people on Twitter aren’t showing up to support the content they demanded.
The number of people willing to speak up to support the right for people to make and enjoy movies, or content in general, that is offensive seems to be growing.
Spotify kept Rogan and dumped the employees complaining about him. Netflix backed Chappelle with his specials. Eminem’s latest album debuted at #1. South Park is still going strong.
The people raising hell on Twitter were never the audience, so it really doesn’t matter what they think. They should be making things for the people who are going to pay.
Disney has been trying to please all those people and there stock has tanked. All I hear are people complaining about their various franchises and how they suck now. I guess those people on Twitter aren’t showing up to support the content they demanded.
>I think there is still a market for the old offensive comedies
There is but not from Hollywood.
>There are comics out there who simply don’t care about getting cancelled
Yeah but Disney and major studios won't touch them.
>The people raising hell on Twitter were never the audience
The doesn't mean Disney and the rest aren't pandering to online social activists. Just look at the new Snow White where they're pushing the girl boss trope who doesn't need a man, doesn't clean the Dwarves' home, and didn't use real live actors for the Dwarves because Peter Dinklage complained about it being offensive to people with dwarfism. Hollywood lives in a bubble.
>Disney has been trying to please all those people and there stock has tanked
And they'll keep doing it as long as they own the world's biggest IPs like Star Wars, Marvel, etc. Once people stop watching their slop altogether they'll stop as well.
There is but not from Hollywood.
>There are comics out there who simply don’t care about getting cancelled
Yeah but Disney and major studios won't touch them.
>The people raising hell on Twitter were never the audience
The doesn't mean Disney and the rest aren't pandering to online social activists. Just look at the new Snow White where they're pushing the girl boss trope who doesn't need a man, doesn't clean the Dwarves' home, and didn't use real live actors for the Dwarves because Peter Dinklage complained about it being offensive to people with dwarfism. Hollywood lives in a bubble.
>Disney has been trying to please all those people and there stock has tanked
And they'll keep doing it as long as they own the world's biggest IPs like Star Wars, Marvel, etc. Once people stop watching their slop altogether they'll stop as well.
First off, let’s not forget that you’re criticizing a movie that isn’t even out yet. For all we know it could be a critically acclaimed box office smash hit when it comes out. Not that I hold my breath for these remakes, but the possibility exists. And it’s wildly disingenuous to be a film critic of a film that isn’t out yet.
But anyway, this is funny to me. Snow White is a nearly 100 year old movie. It came out 22 years after Birth of a Nation. If you think a remake can work as a modern movie with zero changes that is kind of naive in itself isn’t it? It’s not like anyone is going to remake From Russia with Love and include the scenes where James Bond slaps women around.
And I mean, yeah, technically, the original Snow White is probably pretty offensive to people with dwarfism. They’re all heavily dehumanized as lesser people with more flaws than Snow White. Snow White has to come in and fix their life essentially, cook and clean for them, etc.
But anyway, I don’t think that’s the driving reason behind using animated dwarves, I think they couldn’t do some of the comedic elements as well with real actors as they can with exaggerated animation.
There also aren’t a lot of people with dwarfism who are lead-quality actors. You need seven of them for that movie. My guess is that test footage wasn’t working.
But anyway, this is funny to me. Snow White is a nearly 100 year old movie. It came out 22 years after Birth of a Nation. If you think a remake can work as a modern movie with zero changes that is kind of naive in itself isn’t it? It’s not like anyone is going to remake From Russia with Love and include the scenes where James Bond slaps women around.
And I mean, yeah, technically, the original Snow White is probably pretty offensive to people with dwarfism. They’re all heavily dehumanized as lesser people with more flaws than Snow White. Snow White has to come in and fix their life essentially, cook and clean for them, etc.
But anyway, I don’t think that’s the driving reason behind using animated dwarves, I think they couldn’t do some of the comedic elements as well with real actors as they can with exaggerated animation.
There also aren’t a lot of people with dwarfism who are lead-quality actors. You need seven of them for that movie. My guess is that test footage wasn’t working.
It’s not even about “offensive” or “cancelled.” It’s about the pure economics of in-theater movies.
The whole business model of comedy movies released to theaters was that they had mediocre theater box office numbers but the theater release would drive a crazy home rental business for years after the movie came out.
That entire business model doesn’t work anymore. After a comedy movie leaves the theater it’s basically worthless and does nothing to drive streaming subscriptions.
Examples like Rogan, South Park, Chappelle, do not apply here.
Rogan’s podcast is not a comedy. And he’s a terrible standup comic.
Chappelle’s comedy specials only require a stage and a microphone to produce. There is no budget besides paying Chappelle.
Eminem is a musician. And, he’s not actually offensive to the general public, especially not anymore.
South Park is a TV show. Trey Parker and Matt Stone haven’t made any movies since the DVD rental era that I talked about. It’s also very inexpensive to produce compared to a comedy movie.
Finally, the elephant in the room. You should really get out of your conservative reality distortion field. This whole idea that Disney’s their wokeness is ruining everything is utter bullshit. My man, they own 20th Century Studios, 20th Century TV, and ABC Studios. They are the majority owner of Hulu. Disney isn’t just “woke politically correct family movies” or whatever conservative weirdos think they are. They are a giant media conglomerate. They finance shows like The Great, full of swearing, violence, and nudity. [1]
Let’s also not forget that Disney is still a box office machine and knows exactly what they are doing.
The top grossing movies in the United States in 2024, 2021, and 2015-2019 were all Disney.
In 2022 Avatar 2 beats out Top Gun Maverick in the worldwide box office.
This idea that Disney has lost its way and doesn’t understand the movie business is baloney. Disney’s stock didn’t tank because of “cancel culture” or “wokeness,” it tanked because half of the company’s revenue is theme parks and Covid-19 wrecked their business. Its movie business is also heavily skewed to in-theater big blockbusters. Seriously, look up the stock, all the downturn happened in 2020-2022. Disney stock is up 5% this year.
Disney struggles with streaming for the same reason the other networks struggle with it: streaming replaced cable but nothing replaced DVD sales and rentals.
[1] I have also noticed that conservative weirdos always bring up South Park, Rogan, Chappelle, and Eminem specifically as great examples of anti-cancel crusaders. The funniest part about that to me is that conservatives are so behind the times that they don’t realize that Eminem isn’t “slim shady” anymore and isn’t offensive to the general public. Somehow Rogan is supposed to be proof that a show that elevates conservative voices can break through an anti-conservative system, when really all he proves is that conservative talk radio is as good a business as it ever was. He is effectively now no different than Rush Limbaugh, except with a format where he has guests on the show. And then there’s South Park which is basically coasting on a fan base just like The Simpsons.
Finally, Chappelle. Let’s be real be real here: a good portion of Chappelle’s white male audience enjoyed the original show because they took his show to be jokes about Black people, at the expense of Black people. Just like the people who didn’t realize that Colbert on The Colbert Report was satire, they didn’t really see any of the satire or social commentary. So it’s not surprising to me that those same mostly conservative white men enjoy watching an hour of trans hate jokes.
The whole business model of comedy movies released to theaters was that they had mediocre theater box office numbers but the theater release would drive a crazy home rental business for years after the movie came out.
That entire business model doesn’t work anymore. After a comedy movie leaves the theater it’s basically worthless and does nothing to drive streaming subscriptions.
Examples like Rogan, South Park, Chappelle, do not apply here.
Rogan’s podcast is not a comedy. And he’s a terrible standup comic.
Chappelle’s comedy specials only require a stage and a microphone to produce. There is no budget besides paying Chappelle.
Eminem is a musician. And, he’s not actually offensive to the general public, especially not anymore.
South Park is a TV show. Trey Parker and Matt Stone haven’t made any movies since the DVD rental era that I talked about. It’s also very inexpensive to produce compared to a comedy movie.
Finally, the elephant in the room. You should really get out of your conservative reality distortion field. This whole idea that Disney’s their wokeness is ruining everything is utter bullshit. My man, they own 20th Century Studios, 20th Century TV, and ABC Studios. They are the majority owner of Hulu. Disney isn’t just “woke politically correct family movies” or whatever conservative weirdos think they are. They are a giant media conglomerate. They finance shows like The Great, full of swearing, violence, and nudity. [1]
Let’s also not forget that Disney is still a box office machine and knows exactly what they are doing.
The top grossing movies in the United States in 2024, 2021, and 2015-2019 were all Disney.
In 2022 Avatar 2 beats out Top Gun Maverick in the worldwide box office.
This idea that Disney has lost its way and doesn’t understand the movie business is baloney. Disney’s stock didn’t tank because of “cancel culture” or “wokeness,” it tanked because half of the company’s revenue is theme parks and Covid-19 wrecked their business. Its movie business is also heavily skewed to in-theater big blockbusters. Seriously, look up the stock, all the downturn happened in 2020-2022. Disney stock is up 5% this year.
Disney struggles with streaming for the same reason the other networks struggle with it: streaming replaced cable but nothing replaced DVD sales and rentals.
[1] I have also noticed that conservative weirdos always bring up South Park, Rogan, Chappelle, and Eminem specifically as great examples of anti-cancel crusaders. The funniest part about that to me is that conservatives are so behind the times that they don’t realize that Eminem isn’t “slim shady” anymore and isn’t offensive to the general public. Somehow Rogan is supposed to be proof that a show that elevates conservative voices can break through an anti-conservative system, when really all he proves is that conservative talk radio is as good a business as it ever was. He is effectively now no different than Rush Limbaugh, except with a format where he has guests on the show. And then there’s South Park which is basically coasting on a fan base just like The Simpsons.
Finally, Chappelle. Let’s be real be real here: a good portion of Chappelle’s white male audience enjoyed the original show because they took his show to be jokes about Black people, at the expense of Black people. Just like the people who didn’t realize that Colbert on The Colbert Report was satire, they didn’t really see any of the satire or social commentary. So it’s not surprising to me that those same mostly conservative white men enjoy watching an hour of trans hate jokes.
Wow, I didn't know HN was a trendy place for white male hate.
Oh, are you offended? Do you need a safe space? I thought you liked offensive comedy? Or is that just when it offends other people who aren’t you?
I never said I hated anyone. I just think these conservative talking points all rhyme with each other and when you trace them far enough they are all rooted in white supremacist ideas and misogyny.
Turning Red is only “woke” if you think people shouldn’t talk about going on your period because women are bad.
The Little Mermaid remake is only “woke” if you think Black people shouldn’t be the lead in movies.
Lightyear is only “woke” if you think people of the same gender shouldn’t kiss.
The list goes on and on. Literally none of these pro-offensive content people ever explain themselves in any way that makes sense beyond their hate for non-white people, women, and the LGBT community.
You literally criticized Disney for trying to please everyone. If they aren’t trying to please everyone, who are they supposed to sell tickets to, ghosts?
And this conservative cult gets in the way of understanding objective reality, like how you thought that Disney stock went down because of woke movies, when the financial reality of their stock decline had more to do with low Disney+ profitability and the Covid-19 collapse of theme park revenue.
I never said I hated anyone. I just think these conservative talking points all rhyme with each other and when you trace them far enough they are all rooted in white supremacist ideas and misogyny.
Turning Red is only “woke” if you think people shouldn’t talk about going on your period because women are bad.
The Little Mermaid remake is only “woke” if you think Black people shouldn’t be the lead in movies.
Lightyear is only “woke” if you think people of the same gender shouldn’t kiss.
The list goes on and on. Literally none of these pro-offensive content people ever explain themselves in any way that makes sense beyond their hate for non-white people, women, and the LGBT community.
You literally criticized Disney for trying to please everyone. If they aren’t trying to please everyone, who are they supposed to sell tickets to, ghosts?
And this conservative cult gets in the way of understanding objective reality, like how you thought that Disney stock went down because of woke movies, when the financial reality of their stock decline had more to do with low Disney+ profitability and the Covid-19 collapse of theme park revenue.
Cancel culture does a huge disservice to real progressive causes. It's hard to attack a political party built around creating a more equitable society, it's easy to attack people who are willing to burn free speech to the ground and ruin people's livelihoods for having different opinions that you somehow in some fit of intellectual contortionism perceive as "hate speech."
[deleted]
You're being needlessly reductionist. I never made such claims.
You're also being rude by branding people you don't know as white conservatives and insulting them just because they have a different points of view.
IMHO this is what's wrong with the world. You see an enemy in everyone with a different opinions but you're always the ritcheous one. Pretty sure I saw this before. Antifa does the same. Just because you call yourself anti fascist doesn't make you so.
You're also being rude by branding people you don't know as white conservatives and insulting them just because they have a different points of view.
IMHO this is what's wrong with the world. You see an enemy in everyone with a different opinions but you're always the ritcheous one. Pretty sure I saw this before. Antifa does the same. Just because you call yourself anti fascist doesn't make you so.
[deleted]
> And nobody's making comedies anymore because present day people are too easily offended by everything and raise hell on Twitter out of every stereotype joke.
This is such a tired line. Comedies did not stop getting made because woke mobs were flaming them on Twitter, despite what Joe Rogan might have told you in his latest special plastered all over Netflix.
There is a confluence of actual reasons why comedies aren’t prominent in theaters anymore.
Studios stopped making mid budget movies.
Studios consider international audiences more than ever before and comedy doesn’t transcend cultures easily.
Comedies that performed poorly in theaters often broke even in vhs/dvd sales and rentals. Without that it’s more risky to make them.
Movie goers don’t want to pay $30 for tickets and popcorn to see a comedy.
Low budget comedies are saturated on streaming.
High budget action/comedy movies are being made instead e.g. fall guy.
And there’s certainly additional reasons more relevant than twitter users cancelling movies.
This is such a tired line. Comedies did not stop getting made because woke mobs were flaming them on Twitter, despite what Joe Rogan might have told you in his latest special plastered all over Netflix.
There is a confluence of actual reasons why comedies aren’t prominent in theaters anymore.
Studios stopped making mid budget movies.
Studios consider international audiences more than ever before and comedy doesn’t transcend cultures easily.
Comedies that performed poorly in theaters often broke even in vhs/dvd sales and rentals. Without that it’s more risky to make them.
Movie goers don’t want to pay $30 for tickets and popcorn to see a comedy.
Low budget comedies are saturated on streaming.
High budget action/comedy movies are being made instead e.g. fall guy.
And there’s certainly additional reasons more relevant than twitter users cancelling movies.
>This is such a tired line.
That doesn't mean it's not true. There's a reason people keep repeating it.
>Studios stopped making mid budget movies.
Have you checked Netflix? It's full of low budget slop.
>Studios consider international audiences more than ever before and comedy doesn’t transcend cultures easily.
I disagree. American and British comedies were incredibly popular with the youth in my Eastern European country. Same with humor from the GTA games and South Park.
>High budget action/comedy movies are being made instead e.g. fall guy.
Is Fall Guy supposed to be a comedy? I've watched it and I don't think I've laughed once. It didn't even make me push air out of my nose.
That doesn't mean it's not true. There's a reason people keep repeating it.
>Studios stopped making mid budget movies.
Have you checked Netflix? It's full of low budget slop.
>Studios consider international audiences more than ever before and comedy doesn’t transcend cultures easily.
I disagree. American and British comedies were incredibly popular with the youth in my Eastern European country. Same with humor from the GTA games and South Park.
>High budget action/comedy movies are being made instead e.g. fall guy.
Is Fall Guy supposed to be a comedy? I've watched it and I don't think I've laughed once. It didn't even make me push air out of my nose.
> That doesn't mean it's not true. There's a reason people keep repeating it.
Yeah, because millionaire comedians who can say whatever they want on their massive platforms didn’t like getting flamed on twitter and the younger generation doesn’t care for their edgy jokes. “You can’t make jokes like that anymore” is just an excuse made by comedians who can’t make a joke audiences want to hear. Studios want to make money, if there was money in it they’d make it, regardless of taste.
> Have you checked Netflix? It's full of low budget slop.
“mid budget movies”
> I disagree. American and British comedies were incredibly popular with the youth in my Eastern European country. Same with humor from the GTA games and South Park.
It’s not universal but it is more difficult to adequately dub a comedy than an action movie. Physical comedy like Mr. Bean doesn’t have that issue but comedies often perform poorly overseas for that reason.
> Is Fall Guy supposed to be a comedy?
Yes, it’s an action/comedy.
Yeah, because millionaire comedians who can say whatever they want on their massive platforms didn’t like getting flamed on twitter and the younger generation doesn’t care for their edgy jokes. “You can’t make jokes like that anymore” is just an excuse made by comedians who can’t make a joke audiences want to hear. Studios want to make money, if there was money in it they’d make it, regardless of taste.
> Have you checked Netflix? It's full of low budget slop.
“mid budget movies”
> I disagree. American and British comedies were incredibly popular with the youth in my Eastern European country. Same with humor from the GTA games and South Park.
It’s not universal but it is more difficult to adequately dub a comedy than an action movie. Physical comedy like Mr. Bean doesn’t have that issue but comedies often perform poorly overseas for that reason.
> Is Fall Guy supposed to be a comedy?
Yes, it’s an action/comedy.
>It’s not universal but it is more difficult to adequately dub a comedy than an action movie. Physical comedy
I was talking about undubbed.
I was talking about undubbed.
> comedy doesn’t transcend cultures easily
Or foreign investment censorship priorities.
Or foreign investment censorship priorities.
> You can basically find any movie for rent/purchase on Apple TV Store (formerly iTunes Movies) or Vudu
If you look closely at film ownership and licensing, you'll know why this is not true.
The production gold standard for content + commentary is Criterion Collection, who now have their own streaming service in addition to their blu-rays for restored films.
Everything else is an unpredictable puzzle palace of variable quality, license availability windows, free-with-ads, digital codes or exclusivity when a studio (e.g. MGM, Paramount) is bought/sold by a streaming service. Vudu has a good service where you can get an HD digital copy for $2 if you own the bluray. Max 100 titles/year. But as usual, the selection of films for "Disc to Digital" is a random output of license quagmires.
If you look closely at film ownership and licensing, you'll know why this is not true.
The production gold standard for content + commentary is Criterion Collection, who now have their own streaming service in addition to their blu-rays for restored films.
Everything else is an unpredictable puzzle palace of variable quality, license availability windows, free-with-ads, digital codes or exclusivity when a studio (e.g. MGM, Paramount) is bought/sold by a streaming service. Vudu has a good service where you can get an HD digital copy for $2 if you own the bluray. Max 100 titles/year. But as usual, the selection of films for "Disc to Digital" is a random output of license quagmires.
I will not rent a movie, ever. If I buy it I should own it. They only want us to stream the content (when it's available) from them, and they looove removing the small amount of interesting content they have over time.
The current system does not work for consumers, and people pirating media is a result of that. They need to get their shit together, not us.
Meanwhile I'm more than happy to pay for Spotify.
The current system does not work for consumers, and people pirating media is a result of that. They need to get their shit together, not us.
Meanwhile I'm more than happy to pay for Spotify.
How is a $3.99 digital rental any different than picking up a VHS from Blockbuster in the 90s?
[deleted]
[deleted]
I sometimes pirate movies because I’m cheap.
I know how and where to buy the movies. I don't (except for Netflix & Amazon Prime subscriptions) because I'm cheap.
At least I’m being honest.
Some people here are seriously justifying stealing with excuses like “stealing is more convenient and free so it’s the company’s fault”.
Just admit that you don’t want to pay. It’s fine. Everyone knows. No need to come up with elaborate excuses to steal. Everyone can see through them.
I know how and where to buy the movies. I don't (except for Netflix & Amazon Prime subscriptions) because I'm cheap.
At least I’m being honest.
Some people here are seriously justifying stealing with excuses like “stealing is more convenient and free so it’s the company’s fault”.
Just admit that you don’t want to pay. It’s fine. Everyone knows. No need to come up with elaborate excuses to steal. Everyone can see through them.
Hmm, I think if you could actually buy and own a movie download without DRM for a reasonable price then a lot of people who'd otherwise pirate a copy would pay for it.
I think a MacBook Pro M3 Max should cost $2.35 after tax and it should let me install as much RAM as I want. If not, I should be justified to steal it.
That doesn't sound like a reasonable price for one of the parties involved.
It's reasonable to me. Therefore, it should justify me stealing one.
Comparing stealing a physical item to copying a digital file also doesn't make any sense.
Why not? Do people who make digital goods not have to eat?
[deleted]
Ironically, I can buy a used DVD online in a lot of cases for less than the Apple/Amazon/YouTube rental price: https://nickelflix.com/collections/genty-used-dvds
Remember to keep a local offline mirror of your favorite content from ripped physical media, online archives and aggregators. Rotate every 5 years to larger, newer drives that can store higher-resolution versions. Nothing is infallible, including archive.org, infocon.org, flickr, github/gitlab/sourceforge, YT/peertube/rumble, kiwix/stackoverflow/wikipedia and long-tail niche websites.
Alas, I have external drives from 2015, 2010, etc. that I've never filled up completely. Should I consolidate on a newer one and junk them? Some I haven't accessed in years.
It's good to periodically consolidate onto a new mirrored pair of reputable spinning rust with ZFS or another filesystem that can automatically monitor for bitrot, even if you keep the old ones around (drive reliability economics varied over time as vendors consolidated).
Gives opportunity for sorting archives into tiers of importance based on current perspective. Content with highest ratio of importance/size can be stored on enterprise-grade SSD.
The best motivation for keeping healthy archives is to use them :) It's worth finding offline OSS/paid software to help categorize/search/browse archives. Upcoming offline LLMs should also help.
Tailscale on Apple TV (and other devices) can be an exit node for remote streaming access to archives on home networks.
Gives opportunity for sorting archives into tiers of importance based on current perspective. Content with highest ratio of importance/size can be stored on enterprise-grade SSD.
The best motivation for keeping healthy archives is to use them :) It's worth finding offline OSS/paid software to help categorize/search/browse archives. Upcoming offline LLMs should also help.
Tailscale on Apple TV (and other devices) can be an exit node for remote streaming access to archives on home networks.
It's kinda amazing the results you get just by putting your collection together in something like Jellyfin, and getting the metadata etc.
Like having your own Netflix service.... I found I watched a lot more of my movies that way... than when they were just sitting on my drive.
Like having your own Netflix service.... I found I watched a lot more of my movies that way... than when they were just sitting on my drive.
Regardless of the nostalgia factor of old media (whose value is overstated, imo), the only practical alternative these days is not owning any media at all. So when no single streaming service pays the license to stream The Matrix, the film will virtually cease to exist. Fast forward a few hundred years of bit rot, and there's a nonzero chance that the film is lost to time. Think of all the countless valuable film, music, etc that didn't have the acclaim of The Matrix. Gone sooner, and more prolifically.
I remember in the 90's the promise of the Internet was that it would be a resilient repository of all human knowledge and cultural artifacts. I remember people pointing out that the Internet was designed to survive even a nuclear war, so tragedies like the loss of the Library of Alexandria would never happen again.
Instead, we got link rot, abandonware IP, and lots of memes.
Instead, we got link rot, abandonware IP, and lots of memes.
I wonder who was promising that. It's a lot more like a postal system where you can mail huge volumes of data instantly and for almost no charge, but mailing your neighbor or friend is incredibly difficult compared to mailing a company and getting a reply.
Stuff definitely falls through the cracks.
Even the 20-something-year-old promise of Google to "index the world's information" has failed pathetically. I frequently can't find things I'm looking for, because all I have left in my head is a fingerprint of "I'll know it when I see it" and maybe a couple odd keywords that aren't enough to pull any signal out of the noise.
In one case I got ChatGPT to help me find a book I'd been missing for years because the generic keywords like "magic staff", "tree", "volcano crater" returned jack shit on common search engines. (It was "The Ancient One" by T. A. Barron, if anyone else is stuck looking for it too)
In another case I found a book on Kagi.
The Library of Babel is a much closer analogy. Everything _might_ be in there, but you probably aren't gonna find anything worthwhile. lol.
Stuff definitely falls through the cracks.
Even the 20-something-year-old promise of Google to "index the world's information" has failed pathetically. I frequently can't find things I'm looking for, because all I have left in my head is a fingerprint of "I'll know it when I see it" and maybe a couple odd keywords that aren't enough to pull any signal out of the noise.
In one case I got ChatGPT to help me find a book I'd been missing for years because the generic keywords like "magic staff", "tree", "volcano crater" returned jack shit on common search engines. (It was "The Ancient One" by T. A. Barron, if anyone else is stuck looking for it too)
In another case I found a book on Kagi.
The Library of Babel is a much closer analogy. Everything _might_ be in there, but you probably aren't gonna find anything worthwhile. lol.
Specifically, AT&T predicted/promised it in 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Will (directed by Fincher before people knew who he was)
[deleted]
Just an aside: for SF and fantasy, the scifi stack exchange is an invaluable source to identify a story by a few random bits, they have a specific tag/label for questions like that and it never failed for me.
With offline archive via kiwix!
The internet was originally designed to be robust in the face of nuclear war, but that meant packets could be routed over the network even when individual point to point connections were lost.
I remember seeing an ad for whose premise was a cheap hotel where "we have every movie ever made on our TVs".
That was one promise of the streaming future... but there was never an understanding that the internet was permanent.
Even during the initial fad of "everyone needs their own homepage" before geocities, most pages were dead or broken or obsolete in a few months.
A large distributed redundant archive of data would be useful... probably with some mechanism where you can donate resources to preserve the data you like without having to support the stuff you don't care about (because resources are finite.)
I remember seeing an ad for whose premise was a cheap hotel where "we have every movie ever made on our TVs".
That was one promise of the streaming future... but there was never an understanding that the internet was permanent.
Even during the initial fad of "everyone needs their own homepage" before geocities, most pages were dead or broken or obsolete in a few months.
A large distributed redundant archive of data would be useful... probably with some mechanism where you can donate resources to preserve the data you like without having to support the stuff you don't care about (because resources are finite.)
> the only practical alternative these days is not owning any media at all
This is the approach I've taken. Shelves of records, DVDs, tapes, CDs... all gathering dust and taking up space. Honestly the only music I listen to is a classic rock radio station when I'm driving my car. Whatever they play is what I listen to. It's just not that important to me any more. Movies, music, they are just time-fillers. They are something to do when there's nothing to do. When I was 20 I felt differently.
This is the approach I've taken. Shelves of records, DVDs, tapes, CDs... all gathering dust and taking up space. Honestly the only music I listen to is a classic rock radio station when I'm driving my car. Whatever they play is what I listen to. It's just not that important to me any more. Movies, music, they are just time-fillers. They are something to do when there's nothing to do. When I was 20 I felt differently.
thankfully all the pirates of the golden age of physical media and their ancestors who have meticulously tranferred the inherited data to the newest forms of storage have kept countless backups and the legend of neo will live on for years to come
I think most of the stuff from the era of physical media will survive if cared for. So content pre-2010s will probably be found by archeologists some day, and they will ponder why we stopped making films and TV shows all of a sudden.
My collection of DVDs and CDs is still flawless after many decades. I have some VHS approaching 40-50 years (Although it’s slowly degrading).
My collection of DVDs and CDs is still flawless after many decades. I have some VHS approaching 40-50 years (Although it’s slowly degrading).
Idk, the matrix is in the library of congress, i think it's going to be preserved just fine
>Think of all the countless valuable film, music, etc that didn't have the acclaim of The Matrix. Gone sooner, and more prolifically.
E.g. Existenz and Strange Days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existenz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Days_(film)
E.g. Existenz and Strange Days
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existenz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Days_(film)
Both readily available on DVD still thankfully, although Existenz is selling for about twice what they want for strange days for some reason.
Existenz is on the MS Store for some reason.
You're saying both of those no longer exist on streaming services? That's a goddamned tragedy (though I have local copies of both).
Side note, I first watched Strange Days on a VR headset (the Gear VR) while on a 6hr flight, having no idea the movie would be about virtual reality. That felt pretty damn special.
Side note, I first watched Strange Days on a VR headset (the Gear VR) while on a 6hr flight, having no idea the movie would be about virtual reality. That felt pretty damn special.
Ah no. To clarify I was highlighting mvkel's point by pointing out two lesser known films that future film historians would want to access to in addition to The Matrix.
Luckily there are plenty of DVDs floating about for those films, but you can imagine a situation where a cult classic released now will not have that physical artifact.
Luckily there are plenty of DVDs floating about for those films, but you can imagine a situation where a cult classic released now will not have that physical artifact.
With books there is a requirement for to upload all books published in Australia to be put in the Australian National Library. The US has something similar.
It's surprising that something like that hasn't been legislated for film and possibly for TV.
It would be quite doable today technologically.
It's surprising that something like that hasn't been legislated for film and possibly for TV.
It would be quite doable today technologically.
There are a lot of things preserved in the library of congress which remain inaccessible to most people. It's better than having works vanish entirely, but our culture is still poorer and shrinking as a result.
I'd counter that multiple copies are out there in the private collections of data hoarders. It's just underground due to the copyright police.
What happens to those private collections when those data hoarders die though? As the data hoarders die off the private collections will too as hard drives fail and surviving family members, less passionate about preservation, inherit media and servers they don't know what to do with, much of which will just end up in the trash.
If given enough warning about my own death I might be tempted to pay for a couple seedboxes on bulletproof servers and just hope the files stay up as long as possible and find many new homes before the money runs out. The RIAA/MPA can't come after you once you're dead.
If given enough warning about my own death I might be tempted to pay for a couple seedboxes on bulletproof servers and just hope the files stay up as long as possible and find many new homes before the money runs out. The RIAA/MPA can't come after you once you're dead.
I think at some point we might need to accept that preserving every piece of human creation ever made is not possible and perhaps not even desirable.
This is kind of the problem with data hoarding: it’s more about the act of preservation than the content being preserved. The whole practice is based off of anxiety and fear of loss rather than any productive purpose. There’s often low to zero demand for a huge amount of the content.
Just like my grandma’s record collection or fine China, it all amounts to a bunch of stuff that meant something to someone else but not to me. It was offered to me in a vain hope that I might enjoy it in the same way, despite the great improbability of that being the case.
That’s why those items are siting in a landfill somewhere.
I would guess, for example, that most people read very few books that were written before the 1800s. They would be difficult to read, their subject matter would be foreign, and without extensive rewriting/translation/adaptation, they wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Most certainly there are many classic works that survive much longer than a few hundred years, but the percentage is a tiny sliver of all the stories people have created. And that’s ultimately perfectly okay. That’s just how things work. Nobody has enough time on earth to consume such a massive amount of content that humans have made, and a lot of it is straight up bad, or just repetitive of other similar content.
Lastly, there is also another possibility entirely: that the original creators don’t want future generations to see their work.
I think it’s important to remember that all rights are reserved to the creator of the work. As an artist I can sell a print of a painting for a year and decide that it will never be sold again after that. It’s my right to stop selling new copies and my right to prevent people from redistributing copies until the work reaches public domain, because it’s my work.
I know in the case of corporate filmmaking the lack of available works is more about apathy to specific old pieces of content basically being worthless to them, but it’s still a little point to keep in mind.
This is kind of the problem with data hoarding: it’s more about the act of preservation than the content being preserved. The whole practice is based off of anxiety and fear of loss rather than any productive purpose. There’s often low to zero demand for a huge amount of the content.
Just like my grandma’s record collection or fine China, it all amounts to a bunch of stuff that meant something to someone else but not to me. It was offered to me in a vain hope that I might enjoy it in the same way, despite the great improbability of that being the case.
That’s why those items are siting in a landfill somewhere.
I would guess, for example, that most people read very few books that were written before the 1800s. They would be difficult to read, their subject matter would be foreign, and without extensive rewriting/translation/adaptation, they wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Most certainly there are many classic works that survive much longer than a few hundred years, but the percentage is a tiny sliver of all the stories people have created. And that’s ultimately perfectly okay. That’s just how things work. Nobody has enough time on earth to consume such a massive amount of content that humans have made, and a lot of it is straight up bad, or just repetitive of other similar content.
Lastly, there is also another possibility entirely: that the original creators don’t want future generations to see their work.
I think it’s important to remember that all rights are reserved to the creator of the work. As an artist I can sell a print of a painting for a year and decide that it will never be sold again after that. It’s my right to stop selling new copies and my right to prevent people from redistributing copies until the work reaches public domain, because it’s my work.
I know in the case of corporate filmmaking the lack of available works is more about apathy to specific old pieces of content basically being worthless to them, but it’s still a little point to keep in mind.
A big part of preservation is curation.
Even libraries throw away books that nobody lends for a certain amount of time. They have limited shelf space so they need to curate the collection periodically.
Same with digital collections. Yes, it's easier to extend the space available, but it's still just hoarding unless you curate.
Case in point: You can easily get every single Gameboy game for every Gameboy variant.
BUT.
You'll get _every single Gameboy game for every Gameboy variant_. That's thousands of games, in multiple languages and minor version variants. You'll also get rom hacked versions with different cheats enabled for the games. It's an immense pile of crap you (or someone) need to curate by hand to make it an actual collection of games. Going through your memories and multiple reviews checking which games are actually worth conserving and which were just shovelware is a ton of work.
Even libraries throw away books that nobody lends for a certain amount of time. They have limited shelf space so they need to curate the collection periodically.
Same with digital collections. Yes, it's easier to extend the space available, but it's still just hoarding unless you curate.
Case in point: You can easily get every single Gameboy game for every Gameboy variant.
BUT.
You'll get _every single Gameboy game for every Gameboy variant_. That's thousands of games, in multiple languages and minor version variants. You'll also get rom hacked versions with different cheats enabled for the games. It's an immense pile of crap you (or someone) need to curate by hand to make it an actual collection of games. Going through your memories and multiple reviews checking which games are actually worth conserving and which were just shovelware is a ton of work.
Easy enough to avoid the romhacks, get the no-intro set: 2000 files, about 230mb.
Archiving some lists of "best games" and "hidden gems" alongside it would be worthwhile indeed.
Archiving some lists of "best games" and "hidden gems" alongside it would be worthwhile indeed.
[deleted]
The data hoarders are just a greedy sometimes. I can across a story of some lost media the other day, that supposedly had at least one physical copy remain, but no copies would be made, so that the holder could jack the price up on ebay.
Once we've amassed a volume of artistic media so large that it would take hundreds of human lifetimes to make use of, what is the point?
Movies like the matrix have already had an eternal effect on the Zeitgeist of a generation, forever altering human culture in some small way, at the very least. Why worry about it still being on a drive somewhere in 200 years?
Movies like the matrix have already had an eternal effect on the Zeitgeist of a generation, forever altering human culture in some small way, at the very least. Why worry about it still being on a drive somewhere in 200 years?
> Why worry about it still being on a drive somewhere in 200 years?
Movies like The Matrix don't materialize out of thin air.
They are the cultural and creative descendants of countless prior art pieces.
There's a reason why film creators publish commentary about their production process.
To neglect history is to starve the future.
Movies like The Matrix don't materialize out of thin air.
They are the cultural and creative descendants of countless prior art pieces.
There's a reason why film creators publish commentary about their production process.
To neglect history is to starve the future.
> They are the cultural and creative descendants of countless prior art pieces.
Yes, but applied in a sliding window with considerable drop out. The world decides every day which art is worth keeping around and which can be allowed to be forgotten. Just because a film is important to the common psyche in 2001 doesn't mean that will be the case in 3001.
Yes, but applied in a sliding window with considerable drop out. The world decides every day which art is worth keeping around and which can be allowed to be forgotten. Just because a film is important to the common psyche in 2001 doesn't mean that will be the case in 3001.
The problem is that future generations need to be shown the Matrix, if it doesn't exist they can't do it.
There are a bunch of movies for every decade that are still "must see" just for the impact they had on media.
There are a bunch of movies for every decade that are still "must see" just for the impact they had on media.
> The problem is that future generations need to be shown the Matrix
I don't believe this is actually the case.
I don't believe this is actually the case.
There are seminal cultural works that "everyone" should be aware of.
You don't need to see the full movie or read the whole book, but you need to know it exists and how it changed the world.
You don't need to see the full movie or read the whole book, but you need to know it exists and how it changed the world.
The Matrix had an eternal effect on culture? in what ways?
"Top 400 Films & Shows in The Matrix Style", https://www.imdb.com/list/ls041343358/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time
> Once we've amassed a volume of artistic media so large that it would take hundreds of human lifetimes to make use of, what is the point?
By that logic we should stop creating music or writing books right now. What's the point? There are already enough of both that no one could ever have enough years of life to read/hear it all.
Obviously there are a lot of very good reason to keep creating new things, and a lot of good reasons to preserve the old ones, not the least of which is that old works create the inspiration and material for new ones. A good song or a good story is timeless and can be enjoyed no matter many years have passed since it was created.
Media says a lot of about our culture and history. It shows how art has evolved and can provide a lot of education and wisdom that can get lost when fads and trends steal the spotlight for a long time, but when older works are still around to be studied and enjoyed they can be rediscovered.
By that logic we should stop creating music or writing books right now. What's the point? There are already enough of both that no one could ever have enough years of life to read/hear it all.
Obviously there are a lot of very good reason to keep creating new things, and a lot of good reasons to preserve the old ones, not the least of which is that old works create the inspiration and material for new ones. A good song or a good story is timeless and can be enjoyed no matter many years have passed since it was created.
Media says a lot of about our culture and history. It shows how art has evolved and can provide a lot of education and wisdom that can get lost when fads and trends steal the spotlight for a long time, but when older works are still around to be studied and enjoyed they can be rediscovered.
> By that logic we should stop creating music or writing books right now.
Your presuming that old media and mew media is of equal importance/relevance, which I disagree with.
Your presuming that old media and mew media is of equal importance/relevance, which I disagree with.
> Once we've amassed a volume of artistic media so large that it would take hundreds of human lifetimes to make use of, what is the point?
There's billions of people and they all like different things.
There's billions of people and they all like different things.
Interesting mixing up of "an object" worth collecting and "the documents" such as director interviews, deleted scenes, commentaries, etc - also worth collecting but in what sense? I mean the documents are the same if they are digitally on blu-ray, DVD, disk drive or cloud (okay, not cloud), and they do take effort to round up. All the more so that if you are going to do so, you are not going to limit yourself to what's on the approved DVD, you will also hunt more obscure stuff.
Meanwhile, "object" editions are highly suspect from a collecting point of view since generated by a marketing machine. And the documents are often very hard to get to because ignored by the online platforms. The opinions reported are interesting but what a mess for now.
Meanwhile, "object" editions are highly suspect from a collecting point of view since generated by a marketing machine. And the documents are often very hard to get to because ignored by the online platforms. The opinions reported are interesting but what a mess for now.
Every DVD I've ever owned I have ripped to a server. If I paid money for it, I have ripped it somehow. The concept of licensing and never owning the product you paid for must go. Especially video games.
Maybe it's about time to state a thing, means to store and retrieve information do change, as have done ever since, if we want to preserve information we need to transfer it a step at a time from "the old" to "the new" mean, when both are well known and eventual hw needed to work with both version do exists and it's known and spread.
Other activities are pointless, might work for a little time, for a small set of information but not on scale. To preserve heritage we simply should keep data fresh.
Other activities are pointless, might work for a little time, for a small set of information but not on scale. To preserve heritage we simply should keep data fresh.
This is true also for books. Adding things like sprayed edges, pretty hardcovers, and higher quality materials turns the items into more collectibles, things to show off to friends or decorate a home with instead of hide away.
I've known they have been dead for a while when you can buy them for a dollar at the pawn shop.
When Netflix wrecked their dvd business, that was a sure sign as well.
When Netflix wrecked their dvd business, that was a sure sign as well.
I recently dusted off piles of CDs from my wardrobe to put up for sale. Was really chocked that they go for around €30-50 each, one sold for €90! It is mostly semi rare electronic music from the 90s so I would not expect the same from pop/rock. But do check out your old CDs laying around, could be worth quite a bit
Where are you selling them? What are they? Used get only a few $ here.
Discogs, mostly electronic music. Here is an example (sales statistics to the right)
https://www.discogs.com/release/848169-Carbon-Based-Lifeform...
https://www.discogs.com/release/848169-Carbon-Based-Lifeform...
The big streaming players just seem to get worse every day - it's probably not an exaggeration that 80% of movies I search for simply aren't available, at all. Especially classics, double especially foreign. You just can't get them. But there's no video stores any more, and I'm not paying $30+ to order a physical disk from another country, wait a week, only to watch it once and put it in a pile to rot.
So I find myself, just like I did in the '90s, downloading and playing them off a computer. And saying the same things to anyone who'll listen - I'd pay to watch this, but no-one will sell it to me for a reasonable price, so I'll just pirate it and enjoy it with a clear conscience.