5 ms·

People decry (and I am one of them) that the copyright system in the United States hasn't done a good job of preserving our cultural heritage, but it seems the

People decry (and I am one of them) that the copyright system in the United States hasn't done a good job of preserving our cultural heritage, but it seems the issue is larger than that. The BBC hasn't done a fantastic job, either. They lose things, or erase them, or simply never broadcast them again.

betamaxthetape 3y ago
Part of the reasons for the loss at the BBC was due to copyright / licensing issues. > Long-standing agreements with UK talent and musicians unions made it difficult too. Most UK television programmes were only ever contracted for one domestic repeat broadcast and so once a programme had been repeated once, there was often considered to be no point in further retaining the transmission master. It’s purpose had been served. From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-12-morecambe-wise-video-film-archive-restoration https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-12-morecambe-wise-video-f...
retrac 3y ago
I think, in fairness, that it has been a difficult problem. Today, losing material is rather inexcusable, given the cheapness and ease of digital storage. But until recently, archiving programs was genuinely expensive and difficult. It's from 1973. Was the final broadcast master on film, or U-Matic / Type C tape or similar? If it was tape, no one has a machine that can play U-Matic or Type C tapes anymore. Well, the BBC Archives probably do. But let's hope the archives had the money to transfer it to something in the 80s or 90s, back when the tape was hopefully still in good shape. (Edit: Type C was introduced in 1976! It would have had to have been quadruplex tape, if it was tape. There are only a handful of working quad players in the world.) And video tape, well, it was very expensive. And you could reuse it. Most video tape from the 70s got the same treatment parchment did in medieval times. Sometimes erased and reused for scrap paper, even if it had originally been a work by Aristotle. Generally material was done on film at that time. 1000 ft of 16 mm film -- enough for 1 half-hour episode -- cost about $500. Keep an archival copy of everything broadcast at the time, would literally have cost many millions of pounds a year just to make a copy of the film stock. And they would need to do that, as you can't really rely on standard film stock to be archiveable. It needs to be good stuff. A lot of film that is 50 years old today is now literally falling apart. So the archival department would have needed to be be constantly moving old, fragile film material to current media, just as with video tape. That is labour intensive, and accordingly expensive.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  I'm familiar with the issues, I used to work in an academic library where we were preserving material of roughly that era. If I close my eyes, I can still smell the vinegary scent of our cold vault. They kept the material well enough but I have an appallingly keen sense of smell. Meanwhile, in private life, I am considering how to transfer some rare materials from laserdisc ... later, perhaps, but also unpopular. But overall, I can forgive some of the older material but even the newer business just seems to vanish!
  - rwmj 3y ago
    Re laserdisk, do watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlbwl3f39Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlbwl3f39Q
- arp242 3y ago
  > Today, losing material is rather inexcusable, given the cheapness and ease of digital storage. It's not that easy; you can't just put a hard drive or SSD in a safe and expect it will work after 20 or 50 years. If anything it's harder and more expensive today, because you can do that with a reel of tape (it does degrade, but much slower). The main thing that's changed it that people realized there things are actually useful to keep around. Much of the stuff that was erased or thrown out was done just because people didn't think anyone would care.
  - ALittleLight 3y ago
    Yeah you can. I've held hard drives in my garage for 20 years and they worked fine. 50 years in a stable environment? Why wouldn't it work?

betamaxthetape 3y ago

Part of the reasons for the loss at the BBC was due to copyright / licensing issues. > Long-standing agreements with UK talent and musicians unions made it difficult too. Most UK television programmes were only ever contracted for one domestic repeat broadcast and so once a programme had been repeated once, there was often considered to be no point in further retaining the transmission master. It’s purpose had been served. From: https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-12-morecambe-wise-video-film-archive-restoration https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2017-12-morecambe-wise-video-f...

retrac 3y ago

I think, in fairness, that it has been a difficult problem. Today, losing material is rather inexcusable, given the cheapness and ease of digital storage. But until recently, archiving programs was genuinely expensive and difficult. It's from 1973. Was the final broadcast master on film, or U-Matic / Type C tape or similar? If it was tape, no one has a machine that can play U-Matic or Type C tapes anymore. Well, the BBC Archives probably do. But let's hope the archives had the money to transfer it to something in the 80s or 90s, back when the tape was hopefully still in good shape. (Edit: Type C was introduced in 1976! It would have had to have been quadruplex tape, if it was tape. There are only a handful of working quad players in the world.) And video tape, well, it was very expensive. And you could reuse it. Most video tape from the 70s got the same treatment parchment did in medieval times. Sometimes erased and reused for scrap paper, even if it had originally been a work by Aristotle. Generally material was done on film at that time. 1000 ft of 16 mm film -- enough for 1 half-hour episode -- cost about $500. Keep an archival copy of everything broadcast at the time, would literally have cost many millions of pounds a year just to make a copy of the film stock. And they would need to do that, as you can't really rely on standard film stock to be archiveable. It needs to be good stuff. A lot of film that is 50 years old today is now literally falling apart. So the archival department would have needed to be be constantly moving old, fragile film material to current media, just as with video tape. That is labour intensive, and accordingly expensive.

at_a_remove 3y ago
I'm familiar with the issues, I used to work in an academic library where we were preserving material of roughly that era. If I close my eyes, I can still smell the vinegary scent of our cold vault. They kept the material well enough but I have an appallingly keen sense of smell. Meanwhile, in private life, I am considering how to transfer some rare materials from laserdisc ... later, perhaps, but also unpopular. But overall, I can forgive some of the older material but even the newer business just seems to vanish!
- rwmj 3y ago
  Re laserdisk, do watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlbwl3f39Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDlbwl3f39Q
arp242 3y ago
> Today, losing material is rather inexcusable, given the cheapness and ease of digital storage. It's not that easy; you can't just put a hard drive or SSD in a safe and expect it will work after 20 or 50 years. If anything it's harder and more expensive today, because you can do that with a reel of tape (it does degrade, but much slower). The main thing that's changed it that people realized there things are actually useful to keep around. Much of the stuff that was erased or thrown out was done just because people didn't think anyone would care.
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  Yeah you can. I've held hard drives in my garage for 20 years and they worked fine. 50 years in a stable environment? Why wouldn't it work?