What are your thoughts on physical media, especially blu ray

File: 1357603178919.jpg (27KB, 250x323px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 250x323px

I like it as a way of having ownership over a purchase: no (or limited) DRM, no format shift restrictions, no bandwith consumed, no remote deletions, higher fidelity formats whatnot.

Being able to burn files to a disk and hand it off to a person without having to worry about getting it back was a nice thing.

Having libraries take up space though, and that can be an issue if it becomes big enough.

Right now, in clapistan, there are no consumer rights when it comes to digital purchases. There is nothing to stop companies from nuking your account, purchases, and other whatnot arbitrarily. Competition is keeping digital sellers honest, but if they ever collude, it is game over for consumers.

I regularly use those optical discs because it's cheap and simple solution for me. (Local library, rental shops store them, etc.)

>>62468626
DRM --> >>>/trash/

Bluray and UHD Bluray are absolute cancer, they're chock full of DRM and incredibly anti-consumer. Fuck Sony in the ass, I hope physical media dies just to fuck over the greedy companies that lock it down. I don't mind physical media for storage, but Bluray pretty much only exists to suck Hollywood's cock. China had the right idea about trying to make their own royalty free spinoff of DVD.

>>62468735
This, physical media gives the illusion of control at least. It's also adds a layer of security in case your digital files hit the fan.

>>62469058
>Sony
Why do people keep spreading this dumb-ass meme?
It was a fucking committee that designed the damn spec.
Sony and Philips were merely the first people to commit to it and implement a working prototype.

HDCP was Intel. AACS is a group.
BD+ by some faggots.

What, are you some butthurt HD-DVD fanboy?

>>62469058
DRM for regular BD is quite easy to bypass with DVDFab, MakeMKV, etc, though. I prefer it over steaming DRM.

>>62468626
I still buy music CDs to at least somewhat support the band. I never go to live shows and I abhor paying for downloads.

>>62469235
^^

>>62469235
99% of music sites don't have any DRM for music downloads, including Google Play, it's not like they can take it away after you've downloaded it.

File: 1501380426522.png (21KB, 200x194px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 200x194px

Movies, sure.
Video games and music, hell no.

>>62469376
I refuse to pay for lossy files on proprietary codecs. Bandcamp is alright though.

as for music, i think physical copies are just good for collecting nowadays and nothing else really. of course, ripping a CD will get you audio quality better than mp3, but with shit like HDtracks and TIDAL offering lossless downloads, high quality audio is not a good enough reason alone to buy CDs. i like collecting so I always try to find a CD or vinyl or cassette version of a release.

File: 1335586119427.jpg (234KB, 1195x1800px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 1195x1800px

>>62469161
>What, are you some butthurt HD-DVD fanboy?
B-b-b-b-but the factories will be able to tool up faster!

Faggots like him are the reason Blu-spec CDs are dead.

Blurays are DRMed crap, but they provide the best video quality a consumer can get.

>>62468735
>I like it as a way of having ownership over a purchase

Copyright law says you don't legally own the music you buy even if its on physical media, you're only buying a personal license to listen to it.

File: 1396047934623.gif (20KB, 543x600px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 543x600px

>>62470336
>Copyright law says you don't legally own the music you buy even if its on physical media
Copyright licensing shenanigans do not trump first sale doctrine on physical media last I checked.