How does the energy use compare of stamping out a DVD and of streaming a movie to your TV? Especially if it's a film you (or your children) watch repeatedly.

The answer is not obvious. According to [1], mailing a DVD and streaming a film use about the same amount of energy. This doesn't include the energy cost of manufacturing the DVD, but stamping out plastic disks is cheap, so it can't be too high. On the other hand, other studies show that DVD players, being older, tend to use more energy than streaming boxes. For repeated watching, ripping a DVD and streaming it locally seems likely to be better.

Or best of all, stream the movie and store it locally for future viewings. But that's not allowed. DRM is killing the planet.

[1]: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/energy-cost-stre...

> DRM is killing the planet.

Agreed. Thanks for the link. I think I could've stated my point clearer. I am against DRMed streaming/video, and I'm against DVDs. I still want people to be able to make movies and get paid, yet the above two options are unsustainable e.g. when considering the use of plastic for DVD's, and the high energy costs of streaming movies from a data center.

These are all really good points, but what about the cost at the data center?

How much landfill use does my stream use when it's been watched 100 times and becomes garbage?

How much of the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch will my Netflix stream take up?

Plastic is killing the planet.

> Plastic is killing the planet.

No, it isn't. Plastic is only showing up in large quantities in areas where it shouldn't, and occasionally hurting some animals. Microplastics in particular may become a problem at some point, but then again, maybe they won't. We aren't sure. And either way, it's not causing problems just yet.

Greenhouse emissions are what's killing the planet. Manufacturing plastics is a part of that, but so is power generation, and thus all "purely digital" activity.

It's a point that people often confuse. Microplastics are bad, and emissions are bad, but they're bad for completely different reasons. Climate is what's an existential threat to civilization, and what we need to focus on right now. We can deal with microplastics later, if we survive that long.

Just to nuance the nuance...

We do not have an alternative to petrol based plastic for our current economy. Yes, we can make plastic from non-fossil biomass, but it's energetically feasible to replace petrol based plastics. We don't have the landmass, fertilizer, ... to switch completely. (Especially, if you consider the big picture: Biofuel, carbon sinks, food security, ...)

In a way petrol chemistry bought the planet some time before being destroyed by us. It saved the whales and prevented ecological exploitation in the colonies.

Since plastics are used amass not just for stupid junk, but also critical for e.g. medical single use items, sanitation and so on, we shouldn't just think about pollution. Although the thought of eating up to 7g of plastics a day doesn't sit right with me. (Little known side fact: It's not just obvious "plastics", silicone and paint does contribute to microplastic accumulation too.)

Our survival very much also depends on preserving oil reserves for essential use cases of petrol chemistry. Carbon neutral alternatives for many things usually come with an increase in another factor (energy, land use, non renewable resources) which makes them in concert unable to replace fossil energy/chemistry.

Resist.

REDUCE.

Reuse.

Recycle.

Rebury.

Infeasible I think you meant

Yes! Thanks for pointing it out!

> ... but it's energetically infeasible to replace petrol based plastics

(2nd paragraph)

I am using this throw-awayish account with a lacking mobile app and cannot edit. So by all means, everyone, consider selimthegrim's comment a shame-edit to mine.

I mean, I can play a movie on a DVD player on solar energy for a very long time if I take care of it.

How much electricity and infrastructure does it take to deliver the same movie over and over again via the internet I wonder?

Both are silly solutions that could be avoided if we were allowed to buy and download a DRM-free copy of a movie once.

So is CO2 though.

Yes, and oil converted to plastic sequesters CO2.

Every plastic bag, every CD, is sequestered CO2.

Of course, plastic is a problem on its own. I don't like it, its usage.

Yet I am a realist, and in as such, believe that (sadly), every drop of oil will eventually be pumped. Thus, by this logic, any use which locks that carbon up may be a net benefit.

As long as the disk still exists /somewhere/, a digital copy you ripped from it is legal to keep and backup for personal use indefinitely, and transfer to a new owner of the physical copy.

One of your many rights if you -actually- own a copy of media.

Many sites offer DRM-Free music and books without needing to have a redundant physical copy laying around, but in video media this is extremely rare, and that is a problem.

> As long as the disk still exists /somewhere/, a digital copy you ripped from it is legal to keep and backup for personal use indefinitely, and transfer to a new owner of the physical copy.

Depends on your jurisdiction. Ripping a dvd or bluray in the first place would be illegal in the states. Any type of format shifting (including say CD to mp3) is illegal in the UK - even if you did buy a drm free WAV, unless the copyright holder explicitly gives you permission to copy it to your phone, or another computer, you're stuck.

This is hotly debated in the US, I will grant, but it seems -most- US lawyers agree personal ripping of "encrypted" DVDs is Fair Use.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-legal-to-rip-a-dvd-...

Some like to claim DMCA could be used to prosecute someone for bypassing the encryption on a DVD for personal backups but this has, to my knowledge, never been tested in court when an individual defendant was purely using it for personal backups.

There has been a case in favor of DMCA seeking to restrict the release of selling products that allow users to to this: https://www.eff.org/cases/realnetworks-v-dvd-cca-realdvd-cas...

That was an insane call, and it is a pity they didn't appeal as AFAICT.

A similar issue to this was challenged recently with DMCA being used to stop the distribution of the open source youtube-dl tool making the same anti-circumvention claims but in the end this fizzled out as having no merit.

If anyone from Hollywood really wants to test this in court I will happily publish a video of myself ripping one of their DVDs that I purchased for personal use. It would not be a good look for them to to anything about it, and would bet a -lot- that they lose. Still, I would like to see this chilling effect gray zone be put to rest so people are not scared to use their rights.

There is no requirement to forefit your rights once you transition away from physical media. E.g. you could trade DVD equivalent rights on a blockchain. The blockchain including the proof that you legitimately own this copy would stick around for as long as people want it to, it wouldn't depend on big tech companies like MS, Sony, etc. I'm not even a blockchain fanatic but this is one of the few good uses of the technology I think.

What happens then if the blockchain you rely on as proof of ownership goes away?

Blockchains, at least traditionally, work in a way that each full node has a full copy of the entire chain. Anyone can operate a full node. So it goes away when the last person who has kept a copy around somewhere deletes it. That happens way later than relying on a central party and its digital content store that it might close in 5 years (or they might just cancel your account for whatever reason they thought of).