

The Afterlife Is Expensive for Digital Movies - hhm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/media/23steal.html?ex=1356066000&en=e0c41eeae3346782&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

======
pg
One way to solve the problem is to encourage people to copy your data.
Historically the information that survived best has been whatever got copied
most.

~~~
lsb
Or just wait for Moore's law. In 2007, internet storage is $3/GB/yr, much
lower than what it was/would have been in 1997. Those prices are probably
going to come down as well, so the $200k/yr estimate seems way high.

(I wonder if Pixar's costs are lower, and they can just store the bzipped
rendering scripts and soundtrack.)

~~~
ks
Storage is just a small part of the problem. Formats change all the time, and
who knows if it's readable in 50 years?

~~~
lsb
then it makes sense to store, along with the data, two codecs that will make a
array of bitmaps and an uncompressed raw audio file. (project gutenberg, for
example, always has a plain text version whenever there's a more elaborate
format.)

------
carpal
> until some enterprising executive decided that the time was ripe for... a
> 25th-anniversary 3-D rerelease of "Barton Fink," with a hitherto unseen,
> behind-the-scenes peek at the Coen brothers trying to explain a Hollywood
> in-joke to John Turturro.

Man, I'd buy that in a second.

------
downer
This is a very silly article. Storage gets progressively cheaper. If it costs
2^18 dollars to store it today, it'll cost $2^17 to recopy it next year, $2^16
the year after that, and so forth.

Basically, if it costs N dollars today, it will cost roughly 2N dollars over
its lifetime.

