New DVD to hold 2000 movies on 1 disc

[Rudyard]

Nano technology means "organic" if i'm not mistaken.

Nano technology means very small technology, typically things smaller than 100 nanometers.

[Video Head]

The future is still on a plastic Disc? How 1980's...

I would have thought that by this time, and movies made me believe, that there would be a new technology that hovered in thin air and projected holograms in 3D for my viewing pleasure...

How disappointing! I guess its just the qwerty keyboard, mouse and the plastic disc for another millenium.

[Karel Bata]

Just read about some research on viewing habits in a student dorm. Over 40% didn't watch TV on a regular set (they probably didn't have one!) but watched it on their laptop.

Now the obvious thing I'm saying there is 'TV first, movies next' but less obvious is that no-one thinks of owning a TV program (leaving aside box sets). This notion we have of ownership is a product of the means (the only means up to now) of distribution. Once you can pluck whatever media you want out of the air, why should you want to own a copy?

[Reading Bug]

I'm not against downloads/instant gratification, but you should always have the option of backing up your purchase to hard copy. Any media download you pay for should be disc-compliant. That's where something like this new technology could become handy.

Having material out there in cyberspace is fine, but I would never want to compromise my control (or risk losing my acquisitions) by having soft copies act as my sole source. Sites crash, drives crash. I need a hard copy too.

[Karel Bata]

You're clearly over 25 then.

[mh2360]

You had better hope it does not get damaged!!

Yes, a disc of that capacity (and expense, probably), would need to come in a caddy like the old DVD-RAM disks. In fact I always thought the caddies were a good idea, and should have been an option for standard DVDs as well.

[Reading Bug]

You're clearly over 25 then.

The less experienced may not care as much as the more experienced, I'd say. It's really not age. The PC predates me, yet I've always felt this way due to the clear and simple logic of the concept. In our lives, soft copies can disappear. You need to protect yourself.

Would you put all your eggs in just one basket?

[Karel Bata]

Point taken. I'd agree that it's better to have your own hard copy of something that is in some way of value to you, or maybe you just like the DVD extras like I do , or prefer the non-director's cut of Blade Runner (which is difficult to get hold of now) or some such. But most stuff I currently buy on plastic disk ends up cluttering my flat. And I don't want to throw it away because i may want to watch it again in 5 years. So if it's something like Batman Whatever I'm quite happy to pull it out of the ether when I want it...

[DereX888]

Just read about some research on viewing habits in a student dorm. Over 40% didn't watch TV on a regular set (they probably didn't have one!) but watched it on their laptop.

Now the obvious thing I'm saying there is 'TV first, movies next' but less obvious is that no-one thinks of owning a TV program (leaving aside box sets). This notion we have of ownership is a product of the means (the only means up to now) of distribution. Once you can pluck whatever media you want out of the air, why should you want to own a copy?

That is exactly what MPAA/RIAA cartels want all of us to think.
You've been well brainwashed

The first "media" that were in our (humans) use, were probably books.
Sure I don't own any copyright to the books I buy (I mean physical/actual paper-printed books), so of course I am not allowed to reprint it or make whatever copies of it. Yet I DO OWN a copy of it and I can do whatever I want with it - i.e. give it for free or lend it to my friend. Hell, I forgot: I can even legally resell it!
If I "buy" very same book in its digital form (or whatever non-physical media "streamed" to me = exactly what you are proposing) can I do the same with it? No, I can't give it to anyone, I can't lend it to anyone, I can't even leave it for my great-grandchildren so it could become valuable rare 200-years old object some museums may offer truckload of cash for

No one wants to "own" TV program same as no one wanted to own radio program. But we were allowed to do with it basically the same as we did with books - we could record it and even lend it to whomever we wanted to.
Even though radio or TV program is not any physical media (like paper books are), very same principles of "owning" it apply there.

It all changes with Digital Restrictions Mangement that is virtually the sole evil of taking away from us all those small "limited ownership" principles mankind had for centuries, don't you see it?
Under false pretenses of "copy protections" and "fighting piracy" we were legally robbed of our small freedoms for the benefit of Big Corporations that run cartels like RIAA, MPAA and many other!
With DRM'ed digital broadcast you already can't "record" a football game for later viewing without broadcaster's permission, and forget about "taping it" digitally and giving it to your buddy at school or work. Not only forbidden, but also impossible with all the copyprotections of i.e. cable tv... heck, you can't even view it yourself in another room if you don't have another decoder there. In your opinion that's OK that you've paid for all those channels yet you are being restricted to watching them on a single television set because your greedy Cable Co. wants to make more-More-MORE money and want you to pay extra for more decoders without which you can't see any of those 70 channels you've actually paid for having access to? Sure, there is nothing wrong with "protecting the content against piracy", but why YOU have to pay for it in the form of severe usage limitations and eadditional charges for extra decoders?
Think of it: you paid for all the channels in your package. Whats is the actual problem on Cable Co.'s side to have them delivered to you in a non-encrypted form over their cable, after all YOU PAY THEM for all those channel's package, hence you can't be any "pirate"
Isn't it a legally-approved extortion?
I remind you: mere 15 years ago you could watch all 70 channels each on different tv set all at once simultaneously if you wanted to and had enough tv sets at home - because you've paid for it. Let's assume you haven't change your channels package since that time and you still have all the same 70 channels in your package today, the only difference is that they are "streamed" to you digitally: can you watch them all on as many tv sets as before? YOU CAN'T. You've been already robbed from this little freedom (not to mention ability to "record" any of them, which is your LEGAL RIGHT under Fair Use clause).

But more importantly:
If you have bought a paper copy of a "1984" book few months ago at - say - Barnes & Noble, there was no way Barnes & Noble could have ever took it back from your home. for no matter what reason or excuse they might have had. You've paid for it and it is yours for as long as you want to keep it. According to our laws it would have been tresspassing, theft and maybe few other crimes or felonies if they would have come to your house and took the book back away from your posession.
But if you have bought a digital version of the same book, it would have already disappeared from your reader (if you remember what have just happened few months ago). Not virtually but literally it would have been stolen from your library - and what's worse, it was stolen completely legally!
Yet I'm talking about exactly same book, exactly same product, the only difference is the way both are delivered to the customer! One is legally yours and no one can take it away from you ever no matter what, while the other is not only never yours (more like you rent it) but it can be taken away from you - legally - at any time, for whatever reason or no reason at all, without your consent or knowledge.
And I repeat: it is the VERY SAME PRODUCT, just on different "media".

Sure, I too am for having everything delivered to me "off the air" without any hassle of going to stores etc, we all want it, don't we?
But we cannot have it and we will not have it without Big Corporations abandoning all DRMs and stupid anti-consumer/pro-corporation laws like DMCA first!
Otherwise, in few years onve we all switch to "off the air" delivery system, they will probably force us to pay for each and every song, picture, or video we view to pay every time; I mean EACH and every time we view or listen anything we will HAVE TO pay because there will be no alternatives.
RIAA's and MPAA's dream come-tru: no more "hard copies" of anything, and entire countries' market where consumers are paying for each and every time they "use the product", everything DRMed and with copyrights on everything possible - and extended for few generations!

Unfortunately, as it seems, this "battle" (if not entire "war") has been already won by Big Corporations that already own probably all our lawmakers and "run the show" any way they want
What is even more sad is that more and more people are starting to think the way you think.
I guess 10 years of tons of monies spent on public brainwashing by Big Co.s is starting to pay off...

[zoobie]

Interesting read...

My view is, if I'm paying, channels should be commercial-free.
Wasn't the failing Blu-ray the reason the industry (not consumers) decided was the way to go because of it's Sony-Style DRM?

[DereX888]

Interesting read...

My view is, if I'm paying, channels should be commercial-free.
Wasn't the failing Blu-ray the reason the industry (not consumers) decided was the way to go because of it's Sony-Style DRM?

Zoobie, Sony basically is *the industry*.
This corporation own more direct- showbusiness and -related companies all over the world than anyone else ever, probably enough to dictate the rest to do whatever it want.
And it even owns or have decisive stakes in large insurance companies too - therefore in banks and other vital market sectors, for crying out loud. Its all murky and often buried deep, but you can still find out lot of info if you want to dig who owns who.


Sure if you pay it should be commercials-free, or it should be free and you shouldn't pay.
That's what I'm saying for long time too.
I wanted to sue Loews for subjecting me to viewing 17+ minutes of commercials prior showing the movie in their theater (for which screening I have of course paid full admission price), but after first talk with a nice Jewish (of course ) lawyer I realized that without having few million bucks at my disposal I have no chance against them in our so-called "legal system" of Courts of (un)Law. I'm not poor, but we're talking possible millions - and even if I had that much to waste, I still won't have possibly 100-years long life span in case their lawyers would just stall and drag it...

BTW, thanks for reading such long "rant"

[Karel Bata]

I agree with a lot of what you say. And i can see other hidden dangers too. If you log in each time (or your mobile device does) to access these services, at home or out and about, somewhere there will be a record of not just your tastes, but also all your movements. It reminds of something the head of the East German Secret Police said (back in the Communist days): "We want to know everything." It seems horribly ironic to me that only 20 years later the West is managing to achieve precisely that - and all because we want the latest gadget and the convenience of watching Toy Story 6 without making any real effort.

Anyhows, this super-DVD is dead in the water: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/business/media/26stream.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&ref=business