6 ms·

The title here might be hyperbole, but if shutting down a channel would make the museum ‘die’ then they’re simply not preserving the data properly. I’m not sur

The title here might be hyperbole, but if shutting down a channel would make the museum ‘die’ then they’re simply not preserving the data properly. I’m not sure why folks seem to think that Youtube is a good place to archive anything - sure its a good distribution system, but time and time again we see that a handful of malicious actors can shut down entire channels with relative ease. I would hope that these videos are backed up somewhere else on any of the many bulk cloud storage providers out there B2, AWS, Google cloud storage, etc. etc. etc. and could, with some effort be made available elsewhere than Youtube, or restored to the platform after the current storm dies down.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
A museum that nobody can access is just a warehouse.
- Moggie100 3y ago
  True enough, but even physical museums have warehouses where the artefacts are safely preserved between viewings. Analogies aside, I’m not against anyone using Youtube (or any other platform) for distribution - just that it absolutely should not be also used for your actual archive. There are much, much safer and better systems for that. Replicate to preserve!
  - s0rce 3y ago
    Those often support researchers and aren't just warehouses but it is a bit disappointing how much of the really neat stuff you can't see without special access. I really enjoy seeing rock and mineral collections and got a tour of the Royal Ontario Museum collection from a research collaborator when I was in Toronto and it was so cool to see.
    - seabass-labrax 3y ago
      On the other hand, is it that difficult to get special access? I'm sure every museum is different, along with the broad attitudes of the country, specialism etc. On a few occasions, I have been shown things by enthusiastic members staff that usually wouldn't be on display, so I suspect that with the right combination of genuine expertise, courtesy and patience nothing is impossible to view, regardless of current status or academic qualification.
- wl 3y ago
  Most museums display only a fraction of their holdings at any given time.
  - cwillu 3y ago
    Because of limitations on physical space.
    - jebarker 3y ago
      I think curation is inherently valued too.
      - hgsgm 3y ago
        And if the full collection is on display, more people can curate
        s0rce 3y ago
        Doesn't curation imply the full collection is not on display? I guess it depends on the definition you use.
        seabass-labrax 3y ago
        In the digital preservation world, a 'display' is just a playlist on YouTube or a webpage surrounding specific recordings with extra information. In this context, it is certainly plausible to have several distinct 'curations' of the same artefacts being shown simultaneously.
        edgyquant 3y ago
        Don’t think you’re understanding what curate means in this context
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        With a TV show, I would expect the curation to involve exhibits about it. Summaries, context, interviews, etc. The actual episodes should be easy to access and not in cold storage.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  A museum acting as a warehouse is preserving the past for the future, when what they’ve archived can be made publicly available again.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  Distributed p2p is a thing.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Nobody can prohibit the preservation, that is to say archiving, of copyrighted works. This right is protected by the law, at least in the US which is relevant here. What is prohibited by law is distribution of copyrighted works. You need permission or an appropriate license from the rightsholders concerned to distribute or otherwise perform a copyrighted work in public. It is nearly always the latter that a lot of these so-called "archives" trip over. Everyone, including Big Corp, is fine with having their copyrighted works preserved. Obligatory IANAL.
  - crote 3y ago
    Big Corp is absolutely not fine with having their work preserved. See for example the Disney Vault and the recent move to create modern adaptations rather than doing reruns of classics. They are terrified of their works entering public domain and want you to forget they ever existed at all and just pay your monthly streaming fee.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Preservation and archiving can be done regardless of copyright status. Disney wants to renew their copyright because they don't want their stuff distributed.
- Inhibit 3y ago
  That's generally the case with most museums. Only a fraction have physical displays. The idea is that the "stuff" is archived or stored properly which is much less of a burden. When it's desirable to do so public displays of it can be created.
- dalbasal 3y ago
  Museum, often, are 90% warehouse. The idea that museums should have exhibitions and be open to the public was a later development.
3np 3y ago
Quality deterioration is another. Youtube has certainly recoded archives many times. 10yo less viewed vids look like crap not necessarily because of the source material..
jacobwilliamroy 3y ago
Most people don't want to deal with data. So the idea that someone else will deal with the data is attractive to most people. It's as simple as that really. I used to work at a non-profit and we dealt with a lot of video and we spent a lot of time keeping that stuff organized and preventing data corruption.
ravenstine 3y ago
Exactly. The only thing you can trust The Google to do correctly is delete all your data.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  If only.
modzu 3y ago
this is a straw man. it's not just youtube that's within reach of sony's lawyers -- but your cloud, your isp, your basement server..
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Youtube could reject Sony's copyright claims if they wanted, but they're pretending to be helpless bystanders. Don't play their game.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    Sony could file an injunction if they wanted. Trying to defend the legality of hundreds of hours of variety TV is a Fair Use suicide mission, even if you've got Apple or Tesla lawyers. There's probably thousands of legally legitimate copyright claims to be made distributing footage like that. The value in defending it is marginal, especially for a business like YouTube. > Don't play their game. I don't think anyone wants to play their game. Alas, here we are rolling our dice again because hosted video platforms don't work without finding someone to host it.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago

A museum that nobody can access is just a warehouse.

Moggie100 3y ago
True enough, but even physical museums have warehouses where the artefacts are safely preserved between viewings. Analogies aside, I’m not against anyone using Youtube (or any other platform) for distribution - just that it absolutely should not be also used for your actual archive. There are much, much safer and better systems for that. Replicate to preserve!
- s0rce 3y ago
  Those often support researchers and aren't just warehouses but it is a bit disappointing how much of the really neat stuff you can't see without special access. I really enjoy seeing rock and mineral collections and got a tour of the Royal Ontario Museum collection from a research collaborator when I was in Toronto and it was so cool to see.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    On the other hand, is it that difficult to get special access? I'm sure every museum is different, along with the broad attitudes of the country, specialism etc. On a few occasions, I have been shown things by enthusiastic members staff that usually wouldn't be on display, so I suspect that with the right combination of genuine expertise, courtesy and patience nothing is impossible to view, regardless of current status or academic qualification.
wl 3y ago
Most museums display only a fraction of their holdings at any given time.
- cwillu 3y ago
  Because of limitations on physical space.
  - jebarker 3y ago
    I think curation is inherently valued too.
    - hgsgm 3y ago
      And if the full collection is on display, more people can curate
      - s0rce 3y ago
        Doesn't curation imply the full collection is not on display? I guess it depends on the definition you use.
        seabass-labrax 3y ago
        In the digital preservation world, a 'display' is just a playlist on YouTube or a webpage surrounding specific recordings with extra information. In this context, it is certainly plausible to have several distinct 'curations' of the same artefacts being shown simultaneously.
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        Don’t think you’re understanding what curate means in this context
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      With a TV show, I would expect the curation to involve exhibits about it. Summaries, context, interviews, etc. The actual episodes should be easy to access and not in cold storage.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
A museum acting as a warehouse is preserving the past for the future, when what they’ve archived can be made publicly available again.
squarefoot 3y ago
Distributed p2p is a thing.
Dalewyn 3y ago
Nobody can prohibit the preservation, that is to say archiving, of copyrighted works. This right is protected by the law, at least in the US which is relevant here. What is prohibited by law is distribution of copyrighted works. You need permission or an appropriate license from the rightsholders concerned to distribute or otherwise perform a copyrighted work in public. It is nearly always the latter that a lot of these so-called "archives" trip over. Everyone, including Big Corp, is fine with having their copyrighted works preserved. Obligatory IANAL.
- crote 3y ago
  Big Corp is absolutely not fine with having their work preserved. See for example the Disney Vault and the recent move to create modern adaptations rather than doing reruns of classics. They are terrified of their works entering public domain and want you to forget they ever existed at all and just pay your monthly streaming fee.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Preservation and archiving can be done regardless of copyright status. Disney wants to renew their copyright because they don't want their stuff distributed.
Inhibit 3y ago
That's generally the case with most museums. Only a fraction have physical displays. The idea is that the "stuff" is archived or stored properly which is much less of a burden. When it's desirable to do so public displays of it can be created.
dalbasal 3y ago
Museum, often, are 90% warehouse. The idea that museums should have exhibitions and be open to the public was a later development.

3np 3y ago

Quality deterioration is another. Youtube has certainly recoded archives many times. 10yo less viewed vids look like crap not necessarily because of the source material..

jacobwilliamroy 3y ago

Most people don't want to deal with data. So the idea that someone else will deal with the data is attractive to most people. It's as simple as that really. I used to work at a non-profit and we dealt with a lot of video and we spent a lot of time keeping that stuff organized and preventing data corruption.

ravenstine 3y ago

Exactly. The only thing you can trust The Google to do correctly is delete all your data.

porkbeer 3y ago
If only.

modzu 3y ago

this is a straw man. it's not just youtube that's within reach of sony's lawyers -- but your cloud, your isp, your basement server..

anigbrowl 3y ago
Youtube could reject Sony's copyright claims if they wanted, but they're pretending to be helpless bystanders. Don't play their game.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Sony could file an injunction if they wanted. Trying to defend the legality of hundreds of hours of variety TV is a Fair Use suicide mission, even if you've got Apple or Tesla lawyers. There's probably thousands of legally legitimate copyright claims to be made distributing footage like that. The value in defending it is marginal, especially for a business like YouTube. > Don't play their game. I don't think anyone wants to play their game. Alas, here we are rolling our dice again because hosted video platforms don't work without finding someone to host it.