3 ms·

> Firstly, copyright doesn't have anything do with the problem outlined in the OP Sure but it will probably lead to the same thing happening again.

tivert 4y ago
>> Firstly, copyright doesn't have anything do with the problem outlined in the OP > Sure but it will probably lead to the same thing happening again. No. The "same thing" is was people didn't preserve things that other people now wish were saved... but only just barely. No one here actually aching to see the lost silent flim "The Devil Dancer" or would watch it if they could, they're just reacting to a statistic. Here's another statistic 99.9999...% of everything ever said has been lost. None of that has anything to do with copyright, and eliminating copyright would hardly change a thing.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  I don’t think your conclusion follows from your premise. Things were lost in the past because no copies survived. Now we have machines which can copy a million books a second and hard drives which can store thousands of movies, but we’ve created a powerful legal regime which discourages the proliferation of archives of this material. Google tried to archive every book in existence, and was stopped by copyright. In our lifetimes copyright has prevented preservation. The whole effort of google books was shut down half way through. Who knows what they would have preserved if they continued. Your suggestion that no one here really wants to see these films is irrelevant. Someone studying film might want to learn how film techniques progressed. Someone studying technology might want to learn how certain effects were achieved. Someone studying sociology might want to learn how social messages have evolved (or stayed the same) over the years. Lots of information will have been lost with these films. Punishing and discouraging copying will certainly help ensure that fewer copies survive. Discs will rot, licenses will change hands, and the few copies that survive will dwindle and vanish.

tivert 4y ago

>> Firstly, copyright doesn't have anything do with the problem outlined in the OP > Sure but it will probably lead to the same thing happening again. No. The "same thing" is was people didn't preserve things that other people now wish were saved... but only just barely. No one here actually aching to see the lost silent flim "The Devil Dancer" or would watch it if they could, they're just reacting to a statistic. Here's another statistic 99.9999...% of everything ever said has been lost. None of that has anything to do with copyright, and eliminating copyright would hardly change a thing.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I don’t think your conclusion follows from your premise. Things were lost in the past because no copies survived. Now we have machines which can copy a million books a second and hard drives which can store thousands of movies, but we’ve created a powerful legal regime which discourages the proliferation of archives of this material. Google tried to archive every book in existence, and was stopped by copyright. In our lifetimes copyright has prevented preservation. The whole effort of google books was shut down half way through. Who knows what they would have preserved if they continued. Your suggestion that no one here really wants to see these films is irrelevant. Someone studying film might want to learn how film techniques progressed. Someone studying technology might want to learn how certain effects were achieved. Someone studying sociology might want to learn how social messages have evolved (or stayed the same) over the years. Lots of information will have been lost with these films. Punishing and discouraging copying will certainly help ensure that fewer copies survive. Discs will rot, licenses will change hands, and the few copies that survive will dwindle and vanish.