29
BluRay Disc Burning Copies (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Alright so I'm both a physical media freak and a data hoarder, and I generally want to get into making my own torrents of very, very niche movies and TV shows. Trouble is, one BD is very flimsy and data can be even flimsier. I want to duplicate my BluRays and burn them onto other BluRay discs but I've heard that this generally makes the duplicate unreadable because of copy protection.

Is there any specific guide out there that does this or teaches it? I'm not really planning on becoming a bootlegger but a sneakernet of 50-100 disks in boxes is a hell of a lot less startup cost than LTO or even HDDs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Do you mean external drives?
Movies don't need much speed at all. And HDDs have much better cost/GB than SSDs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    REMUX files are around 50GB on average. SSDs are portable, don’t destroy themselves if you move them when in use, and don’t require external power.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you care about local data preservation and you’re storing remuxes you should probably be storing them on a nas, or really just on a raid array. This allows for error correction due to the parity stripes and everything, and provided tolerance for drive failure.

    If you were really serious about it, you’d want a mirrored nas offsite, or you’d push encrypted backups to cloud storage or something. But if you care about storing data as long term as possible you absolutely should not be storing the stuff on a single ssd or external drive or anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Three copies (a raid mirror and a backup counts), two types of media (drive and tape), one off-site (where it won't be affected by fire, flood, tornado, earthquake).

    A cloud backup gets you all but the local mirror in one go.

    Also, it doesn't count as a backup until you've tested a restore and verified it works.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I fail to grasp the idea about backing up and storing movies in the first place. I treat movies and TV shows as transient data. Can it be recovered? Yes. Why bother spend so much time, money and effort backing them up then?

    I've build a new NAS recently. Migration process took couple of days instead of couple of months just because I deleted all movies/shows and re-download them.

    I think archiving and backups should be done for things we can't afford to lose, not every single bit we download from the Internet. Even in the case of the OP who treasure those BDs, what's the point of treasuring something you could find and download again in minutes?

    It's just my opinion, take it as you wish.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I largely agree with you. I don’t include my pirated media in my cloud backups, both because as you said it’s easily recoverable and I’m not about to pay for 10’s of Terabytes of cloud storage lol. The only redundancy I have for them is the fact that they’re stored on a RAID array vs just being on single drive. It’s just personal records and documents, photos, and personal code that I have backed up into the cloud.

    As an aside, I’m kind of confused as to how you were able to redownload all your media faster than copying it over from one NAS to another. I have my NAS connected to my network with a 10Gbps fiber spf+ module and only have 1Gbps from my ISP, so I can copy 10x faster than I could just download. Even if you had the nas on 1Gbps surely copying would be faster, or at least not slower than, downloading, especially when considering the overhead of unpacking, parity checking, etc right?

    And that’s with me thinking about all this with Usenet, which has always consistently maxed out my available download bandwidth. My experience with torrents is that it’s much less consistent with fully utilizing all my available download bandwidth just bc it’s more reliant on the seeders upload rate caps.

    At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter i guess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    File size doesn't matter.
    Both are portable and wouldn't be moved while in use.
    And yes, you do need a second cord to power a HDD.
    But they're still way Cheeper per GB, and potentially way bigger per drive than SSDs.

    I have a HDD dock and 3 HDDs I use for backups every month. They work great as portable mass storage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent