10 ms·
25 years of video clips gone as Paramount axes Comedy Central wesbite
- fatbird 2y agoTorrenting becomes a moral imperative.
- mindslight 2y agoAlways has been.
- herunan 2y agoIn at least a decade, torrents will be down as saviours of digital content.
- wiseowise 2y agoAlready are.
- Daz1 2y ago[flagged]
- redundantly 2y agoDo you also think Adblock is piracy?
- ralusek 2y agoObviously...You use a service, which costs money to run/build/produce, and the way that service is paid for is by advertisement. Your decision that the advertisement is annoying or intrusive isn't what makes your circumvention of it piracy or not, it is your violation of the terms according to which you're being given access to the content. I find it interesting that I have yet to meet a single person advocating for ad blockers on YouTube who, upon being given the option to have an ad-free experience by paying for YouTube premium, choose to do so. Yet they often then immediately fall back on the tired arguments that "well if the ads weren't so intrusive I wouldn't use an ad blocker."
- kortilla 2y ago> YouTube who, upon being given the option to have an ad-free experience by paying for YouTube premium, choose to do so. That’s not interesting because it’s a false dichotomy. If someone watches youtube and premium costs 5% of their monthly income, it will not be a shocker when they choose to block instead. Similarly, people who view it as a shakedown for payment with the alternative being visual and audio harassment are not going to bend the knee easily. I lost all respect for youtube when I saw that my dad is subject to a minimum of 60 seconds of political attack ads every 5-10 minutes that can’t be skipped. Literal political propaganda 10 times an hour. Fuck them.
- zer00eyz 2y ago>> and the way that service is paid for is by advertisement. If by advertisement you mean the whole sale consumption and tracking of all your personal behaviors to aggregators that have arbitraged advertising for their profit and pushed everything in a race to the bottom... Then yes. Most people don't object to ads, and less to smart ones... we hate pop ups, the tracking, the scams, the bullshit. Advertising on line has done everything in its power to devalue its product as much as possible and operate an ineffective volume business. Its been doing this since the Netflix pop under and the sign up for 10 services to get a free iPod days. > ad-free experience by paying for YouTube premium How many paid for services now have ad's to? Sorry but no one is buying into this bullshit any more.
- jwiz 2y agoWouldn't that be a bunch of the people paying for YouTube premium? Half the reason I pay for it is just because it is easier than trying to mess with ad blocking. (The other half is that it's nice to have download on every device in the native app).
- MrDrMcCoy 2y agoMy argument against paying for YouTube is that it feels like rewarding their shitty ad behavior, while also requiring me to use an account that allows them to track me and continue selling my data. If I had any faith in Google not being evil, I'd be happily paying for rather a lot of Google services...
- 2y ago
- Daz1 2y agoIt's not 'piracy', but it is theft of a different nature in that you're indirectly reducing the revenue that would have been received by the content creator.
- ndriscoll 2y agoBlocking crypto miners reduces revenue too. It's all malware (in fact crypto miners are obviously less malicious) and blocking it shouldn't be given a second thought.
- Daz1 2y agoWe're talking about ads keep up
- ndriscoll 2y agoRight, and adware/spyware (which are in practice the same thing) is malware, and is objectively more harmful than surreptitious crypto miners. One just wastes energy. The other wastes energy, spies on you, and attempts to use the information it gathers on you to exploit your psychology and turn you into more of a consumer, or in some cases just outright run scams on you. Background crypto miners are a far more honest and direct payment mechanism.
- wiseowise 2y agoIt’s a theft because I don’t want to watch 40 seconds of unskippable ads every time I open same video in succession on YouTube or whenever I rewind? Seriously? Provide fair conditions and people won’t pirate.
- redundantly 2y agoRewind too far? Ads. Skip forward too far? More ads. Pause too long and then resume? Even more ads. Watch 30 seconds of ads, then a few minutes of video? Oh wow, more ads! Accidentally leave the YouTube app then reload it? You guessed it, more ads! Turn off your TV while a video is playing then you turn it back on the next day? New ads are instantly loaded up and are playing before the screen turns on all the way. Block channels, creators, or content you dislike in an effort to tailor a video feed to your preferences? Too bad. You’ll still receive content the system knows you dislike because those creators manage to push ads onto their viewers more often. Pay for a YouTube subscription to block ads? That service gets cancelled, and your only option is to sign up for a new service that costs more and includes features you don’t want and won’t use. On top of all that, your viewing habits, likes, dislikes, and a mountain of other private information are collected and sold to random entities. Use Adblock? You're a no-good, dirty, rotten pirate! How dare you steal the food from poor little Google’s mouth?
- JohnMakin 2y agoWhat’s the alternative?
- Krasnol 2y agoYou don't have something anymore if a thief gets it. Nothing gets lost here. There is even more of it afterward. So please...spare us that sad tactic.
- Phiwise_ 2y agoSpare you the sad tactic of disagreeing with you instead of just assuming your conclusion?
- Daz1 2y agoSorry but this pointless semantic argument has been thoroughly debunked. A tangible object is not required for it to be considered theft in anything other than very specific legal contexts. That's why we talk about musicians 'stealing' riffs or chord progressions. That's why artists accuse AI of 'stealing' their digital artwork. That's why comedians complain about other comedians 'stealing' their jokes.
- kortilla 2y agoIt hasn’t been debunked. It’s still not theft despite artists using the “you stole my idea” colloquialism. It’s non-rivalrous and a massive portion of the world does not see it as bad at all to copy ideas (see China), let alone anything on par with property theft.
- Anotheroneagain 2y agoIt basically destroyed western industry, as designing anything is a lottery with very poor odds.
- JanNash 2y ago"We" do not talk about musicians stealing chord progressions, at least I do not. There is (in western diatonic music) a quite limited number of chord progressions (that sound "good"/"acceptable" to ears used to this kind of music) Should new music be prohibited from being created once they've been used? Should painters not be allowed to use a certain combination of colors anymore because another artist already used them? As a (studied but now hobby) musician, I think that is utter nonsense, excuse my french...
- pi22by7 2y ago[flagged]
- cscheid 2y agoThis you? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39788334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39788334
- Daz1 2y agoOh I'm a self-admitted thief yes
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoThis is why you download the things you love. Hard drives are cheap.
- anigbrowl 2y agoI can't help thinking that zapping sites with no warning is intended to defeat amateur archivists.
- defrost 2y agoStable, Horse, bolted ... Other content lost in the purge were clips and full episodes of other short-lived late-night entries like The Opposition with Jordan Klepper, The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore, the Chris Hardwick-hosted @midnight (predecessor to After Midnight), and Lights Out with David Spade. To quote Life of Brian "I know where to get it if you want it" ... these shows were archived as they aired.
- autoexec 2y agoI imagine that finding copies of much of that will be difficult. I know someone who took to the high seas for episodes of the Colbert Report, but how many people are still seeding full seasons of that, let alone shows like Lights Out which were nowhere near as popular.
- defrost 2y agoThere are still private trackers going on two decades old now with packrat members who have home NAS systems with everything they've ever watched saved away and shared on request with other members in good standing .. less high seas piracy, more community of collectors with digital VHS tapes.
- Bluecobra 2y agoFunnily enough I remember reading somewhere that this was some of The Daily Show’s secret sauce in where they would DVR/record all the other news programs.
- HaZeust 2y agoMTV news then this?? Did some older and borderline archaic provider skyrocket their prices?
- mcmcmc 2y agoFrom TFA: > The move would appear to be part of continued belt-tightening measures at Paramount, which is more than $14 billion in debt, led by losses at Paramount+ and its aging cable networks.
- swagmoose 2y agoI knew it was bad, I didn't know it was $14 billion bad. Did they spend it all on their two terrible streaming apps?
- drekipus 2y agoYou betcha.
- zer00eyz 2y agoTech people grift LA types... No, never, not us...
- chefandy 2y agoYeah. Episodic streaming content has been incredible for the past few years, but now TV studio execs realized that indiscriminately pumping money into everything, all the time, inexplicably, isn't a good business move! So they've just started firing the big staffs they've picked up and cancelling projects. Because, when you realize you've been making irrational moves, the answer isn't trying to make rational moves– it's making equally irrational moves in the opposite direction.
- autoexec 2y agoI wonder if that's why they started forcing people to create accounts on PlutoTV. They must be looking to make money selling people's data.
- 2y ago
- peddling-brink 2y agoAnything else owned by paramount that needs to be urgently archived?
- portaouflop 2y agoAnything they own. They (and most other big Hollywood studios) are in deep shit and will probably shut down if there is no miracle.
- nyokodo 2y ago> will probably shut down if there is no miracle Someone will buy their IP and back catalogue in a bankruptcy. Those will retain value and even highly speculative properties might be worth owning just in case if the price is right.
- MrDrMcCoy 2y agoProbably Disney too if antitrust didn't get in the way. I'm pretty sure I don't want them meddling with Star Trek, but that may be the only way it stays in existence.
- autoexec 2y agoThey might buy up their shows, but there's no certainty that they'll release them or that they'll release them uncensored/unedited.
- slim 2y agodon't worry people, you will still be able to ask chatgpt about most videos that were on that website /s
- wiseowise 2y agoWith the new twists every time you ask for it! Stay tuned!
- tombert 2y agoHow much could it possibly have been costing them to leave old clips up? I suspect the really old stuff was pretty low traffic, file storage is ridiculously cheap, how much money could this realistically save them? I'm sure it's not "zero" but I think I'm missing something...is it copyright savings or something?
- mattmaroon 2y agoYou’re missing that they want you to subscribe to Paramount Plus, so they’re going to have all of their content there, where you pay them. They mention it in the press release. Their company IS paramount plus now. It’s all going there.
- lukan 2y ago"You’re missing that they want you to subscribe to Paramount Plus, so they’re going to have all of their content there" Most of the comments here seem to have missed that, if true. I did not read the article, the headline implies otherwise, but that surely can be clickbait.
- croes 2y agoPartially >Unfortunately for those in search of older episodes of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, neither can be found on Paramount+.
- smcin 2y agoIt's not true, the article itself said it wasn't true. I posted a partial list above of entire shows/seasons that cannot be viewed on Paramount Plus.
- mattmaroon 2y agoVerb tenses are not hard. I said all their content is going to be there, not that it is already. They are betting the company on people paying for paramount plus, it would make no sense for them to have free content anywhere else. They’re moving it all now.
- edgarvaldes 2y agoI'm all for archiving all the things. I even hoard some things myself. On the other hand, uncoordinated efforts are so wasteful.
- ta8645 2y agoGiven the legal environment, uncoordinated efforts may actually be more resilient, than wasteful.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoI remember watching full episodes of South Park on their website. This was around 2000.
- brailsafe 2y agoThankfully these are still available on southparkstudios.com
- whatever1 2y agoSo wait if I have a copy of a deleted forever by Paramount episode am I a thief or savior? My morals are confused
- nyokodo 2y ago> if I have a copy of a deleted forever by Paramount episode am I a thief or savior? Intuitively if this media is truly otherwise gone forever, it appears more like salvage than theft.
- DaoVeles 2y agoSavior to the people, thief to the lawyers.
- akira2501 2y agoIn media one of the things we have to "deal with" is Sound Exchange. When we play a song, we have to keep track of that, and how many people heard it, then settle up at the end of every month with SX. There should be an open royalty payments system for everything and available to citizens. So that I can credibly say, "look, I did pirate this entire TV series, but I want to pay the obligatory contract rate, and I want that money to go to the creators."
- thinkingemote 2y agothis reminds me of one of the only interesting use cases for blockchainish stuff. Lets say a movie would have it's unique id and links to creators, publishers, writers, actors etc together with how much they should be settled with. You buy a movie and the creators get their proportion automatically. You now have the official version of the movie. You take the movie and make a fan cut and sell that, you are added to the chain as a creator, you specify your cut and all the creators continue to get royalties. It doesn't stop piracy but it makes the royalty system transparent and it gives the creation an independent life. It distributes copyright or ownership I guess. Derivatives can also be worked on and sold easily. You could have any third party "popcorn" app that had this micro payment within it. (In reality studios put up huge sums of money to finance a movie, this use case couldn't address that side, just the selling and distribution of digital things)
- ajmurmann 2y agoCould they just have uploaded these to YouTube and monetized there through ads? Might not go with their brand, but better than deleting!
- paulddraper 2y agoAnd not subscribe to Paramount+?!?
- TeMPOraL 2y agoIsn't Paramount+ the hole that's sinking the ship in the first place?
- paulddraper 2y agoBetter fill it
- oefrha 2y agoYou do realize YouTube is one of their main threats, and their main advantage over YouTube is higher quality? Giving treasure trove of quality content to YouTube in exchange for peanuts while shuttering their own, that would be a double whammy.
- aniforprez 2y agoAs opposed to making zero money, having your content be pirated and not having an official archive? Putting it on YouTube with ads would have without a doubt been the better option here
- oefrha 2y agoYeah, as history has shown, fire sale of assets to competitor eating your lunch has been without a doubt a sound business strategy. /s In all seriousness, giving existing and potential customers more reasons to spend their time on YouTube is not good for their business.
- Sparkyte 2y agoLost media is a real thing, more and more so when the internet loses data we've stored. We think it is a premanent place and sure it might out live us, but nothing is permanent.
- sofixa 2y agoThis isn't new. Lots of old (pre-Internet) media was lost forever because storage was expensive and it was considered not worth it. As an example, there are a bunch of Doctor Who episodes which are lost forever because the BBC back then didn't consider it worthwhile to keep them and overwrote the tapes.
- wiseowise 2y agoNice.
- zwnow 2y agoIt's also not a bad thing to be honest. There's so much content on the internet that would be best deleted.
- hannasm 2y agoFree content removed by previously benevolent publisher. It's too bad they weren't able to make their free content into a profit stream. The sad part here is that they were / are a steward to something beloved by many but through copyright they take it as hostage to the grave. If they no longer find value in distributing it shouldn't they be obligated to waive their ownership? Maybe copyright itself needs some reform if it grants control over the archaelogical / historical record of our civilization
- jpk 2y agoI'm reminded of how trademarks work: If you don't bother to defend them, then you lose them. Maybe copyright should be the same way: If you're not distributing copies any longer, you lose the copyright protection.
- ryandrake 2y agoThe copyright cartel would fight that with their lives. They would rather destroy content forever than let it out for free, even if neither option costs them a cent. “The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.“
- ninjin 2y agoFor those of us not reading widely enough and/or not being raised in the American literary tradition, the quote is from John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" [1]. I have long been aware of the work, but reading this quote makes me regret not having read it yet. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grapes_of_Wrath
- ang_cire 2y agoYo ho ho...!
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: MTV news website goes dark, archives pulled offline https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40782101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40782101
- brailsafe 2y agoI suppose stuff like this just reinforces why I download everything I can, even though in this specific case I never had much access to comedycentral anyway since it was typically region locked.
- hyperific 2y agoI guess I gotta be the one to point out the typo in the title. *website
- keeglin 2y agoThe Daily Show, during all those classic Jon Stewart years. And sure enough, it's gone. My first try, the classic interview between Jon and Joe Biden in 2015, where Biden admits he unwittingly politically used a story about a family coal miner that didn't exist. Interviews with Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice. Their 2000 and 2004 coverage of the RNC and DNC conventions, all gone. https://www.cc.com/video/j6f55l/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-donald-rumsfeld-pt-1 https://www.cc.com/video/j6f55l/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew... https://www.cc.com/video/kqe9tb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-condoleezza-rice-pt-1 https://www.cc.com/video/kqe9tb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stew... Yeah, I think I have a feeling about that, but I think really this is just a loss of some of our common story.
- mandeepj 2y agoCC has a YouTube channel and a FB page. Did they delete content from their as well?
- smcin 2y agoYT: https://www.youtube.com/@ComedyCentral/ https://www.youtube.com/@ComedyCentral/ I don't know, I guess you'd have to search regularly to find out. I do see 9-11-year-old episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report currently on CC's YT page, yet not available on Paramount Plus. Maybe Paramount Plus will use YT to gauge which of their back-catalog there is interest for.
- varunnrao 2y agoWhat I find really interesting is that all these studios who ran TV channels for so many years fumbled the bag when it came to streaming.. It's like all these people who basically were in content distribution didn't really wise up to the next, new thing in their business even as it happened in front of their eyes. It's pretty wild that Paramount+/Disney+/Peacock or whatever really struggle to get going, especially given that they provide access to top shows that people really want to watch. It's like having Breaking Bad-esque product but really screwing up when it comes to wanting people to watch it. Given the extent to which the tech behind streaming platforms -- storage, CDNs, tie-ups with telecoms -- have been standardized (and democratized, to some extent) by big players like YouTube and Netflix, you would think that a basic ad supported layer of any of these studio specific platforms would make many multiples of what they actually need to put in to setup a basic platform. The tech's cheap and they already have the content. Most of the older content would be relatively low traffic -- hell, most of these old topical Comedy Central late night shows barely broke a million views when they were new and I don't think jokes about Saddam Hussein and GW's folksy demeanor would click now. How much would it really cost for any big studio to let people view these archives? Am I missing something big that causes somebody like Paramount to go $14B in debt trying to get people to use their streaming service? Is it a function of the business they're in or is it just a case of LA movie studio types not understanding tech?
- wiz21c 2y agoMaybe the old content distracts the consumers from the new content ? And therefore, they prefer to push the consumers towards the new content ?
- sytelus 2y agoThese studios used to make ton of money because only a few are in town. Now, every teenager is his/her own studio and content pool is so vast that their revues must shrink. They have nowhere to run. I think their end state is to publish on YouTube/Netflix and continue living at fraction of revenue that they are used to. That's what they should prepare for and plan for. Their existence and importance was supported by scarcity imposed by cable network and they need to understand that. But instead they live in fantasy of becoming next Netflix and burn in billions of dollars in debt.
- sytelus 2y agoThis is complete incompetence from their leadership who show no value to their own content. They could have easily auctioned off/sold very old content to someone else but that kind of thinking would be beyond their competency. It's no wonder they go in such huge losses despite of having loyal audience and monopoly over unparalleled content. To this day I cannot get over the fact that there are literally millions documentaries out there made with a lot of love and hard work but only available through DVD or mailing in a check to some dude. Similarly, lot of my favorite music albums are still on cassette tapes and never digitized online by their creators. Fortunately, audience did digitized them nicely and uploaded over to torrents and that's the only way to get them today. Same goes of out of print books and magazines. The producers of this content could have easily digitized it and uploaded over to some marketplace and made at least free coffee money for rest of their lives but surprisingly they just never get around doing it. IMO, it just expresses complete naivety and disregard to importance of their own content. They sure spent days and months of blood and sweat but can't get around to do a last mile of uploading files. There is a huge startup opportunity here for folks who are willing to chase these content and do the last mile on their behalf.
- samspot 2y agoThey can still sell it. We shouldn't assume because the webservers were shut down that everything is deleted and gone. When the article says it's "gone" they mean it is no longer available to the public.
- w0z_ 2y ago[flagged]
- w0z_ 2y ago[flagged]
- dtech 2y agoI also haven't gone to a library recently to read the Iliad, that doesn't mean I'm ok with all copies being burned.
- firefoxd 2y agoThey could have saved money by hiring developers who are cheap. Not cheap developers. My team requested access to a tool in the company, and the finance department said it was too expensive to get an additional license. We fought for 6 months to get that license. The moment we got access, we saw that everyone was on the high end plan, and not even using it as it was intended. We even saw an account called Sample-test that was costing upwards of $15k a month. Now we pay $1000 a year. Paramount+ rushed to get in the game. They even borrowed the plus in their name. Now they need those frugal devs to make it work and help save money.
- oliviasmithjhon 2y ago[flagged]
- osobo 2y agoThey got an estimate for the audit on expired copyrights and media use and though "fuck it". Probably going to monetize and re-release cleared highlights at a later date.
- bottlepalm 2y agoPiracy should be legal if there are no other means of obtaining the content.
- reddalo 2y agoIn other words: piracy is illegal because it hurts the content producer (they don't get any money). But if there's no way to pay for that content, no damage is done, hence piracy and "copyright violation" should be 100% legal.
- SarahC_ 2y agoIt is clear now that paper archives are far superior to digital ones. Digital archives don't degrade over time - but they are so easy to destroy. Unplug the disks, or hit "Erase", or take the site down - and history has been erased. We'll know more about the 19th century than we ever will of the 21st century.
- Akronymus 2y ago> Digital archives don't degrade over time They certainly do. File formats become obsolete, the drives can accumulate errors, when copying the files from an old drive to a new one, some files may get forgotten about, someone loses some metadata, etc. https://www.getty.edu/news/preventing-digital-decay/ https://www.getty.edu/news/preventing-digital-decay/
- TeMPOraL 2y ago> We'll know more about the 19th century than we ever will of the 21st century. With digitization, we're losing a lot of documents from before 20th century as well, thanks to people who figure that digital scans are cheaper to keep than the paper originals, or worse, who also think someone else already digitized them (they didn't, because they also thought the same).
- user3939382 2y agoWhen a work of art becomes known by the general public for some very short period, like 10 years, it should enter the public domain. That’s plenty of time for creators to profit. Art that has become part of our culture shouldn’t be owned by anyone.
- tmtvl 2y agoBy the time I finish this comment someone else will have pointed it out, but the S and B in 'website' are the wrong way around.
- a-dub 2y agowild to think that the web is old enough now that major media properties are shutting down websites.
- thenoblesunfish 2y agoThis really highlights the need for something like a "right to culture". People deserve a way to personally preserve and enjoy the cultural artifacts that are important to them. I can mostly do that by buying digital music, but (as Jon Stewart would say) with TV and movies, ah-not-so-much.
- reddalo 2y agoPiracy is the only realiable history preservation tool.
- yard2010 2y agoEverything is available on Usenet. So it's not such a big deal.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y agoThis is what happens when software developers sell the idea of "streaming", i.e., downloading and throwing away, instead of downloading and keeping. Meanwhile the price of offline storage has dropped precipitously as the popularity of expensive "streaming" has risen. Online storage is relatively expensive but software developers sell the idea of "cloud" storage instead of offline storage. Eventually people want to cut costs. Overpriced "cloud storage" is a likely target. Why are these ideas pushed on computer users despite contravening common sense. Answer: Greed.
- guappa 2y agoI think developers would prefer implementing the easier solution. But it doesn't give subscriptions so…
- rezmason 2y agoThe ability to purchase and download whole seasons of shows from iTunes was one of its major advantages. I bought all of West Wing ten years ago, and I know for a fact that it's all physically in this room, three feet away. This is also the only way Ainsley Hayes can possibly manifest outside of Aaron Sorkin's imagination.
- vincnetas 2y agoBusiness as usual. Someone decided to earn more money : "While episodes of most Comedy Central series are no longer available on this website, you can watch Comedy Central through your TV provider. You can also sign up for Paramount+ to watch many seasons of Comedy Central shows."
- euroderf 2y agoThis firms up a moral case for torrents as a distributed archival method.
- donatj 2y agoJust burning goodwill like cordwood. I'm starting to believe they don't have a single person on staff who understands customer relations - or even that they have customers in need of pleasing. They seem like a faceless entity with impenetrable goals. Honestly, I'm still reeling from the cancellation of Tosh.0. It makes zero sense from the outside looking in. It was their second most popular show after "South Park", cost peanuts to make, and had been renewed for another four seasons. They ended up breaking the contract, which presumably cost them nearly as much as just producing the show would have
- xtiansimon 2y agoHa! Historical rhymes—film, magnetic tape, and now hard drives?
- pentagrama 2y agoAt least crate a YouTube channel as a archive and upload the videos there. Will mantain te brand presence, avoid some backlash, and maybe earn some money with ad revenue.
- jeffwask 2y agoThe enshitification continues.
- ck2 2y agosomeone alert r/DataHoarder this still works for the moment https://www.adultswim.com/videos/ https://www.adultswim.com/videos/ oh wait that is cartoonetwork, nevermind, well actually you never know
- IanKerr 2y agoWe're going to lose so much more cultural history to corporate greed in the next century. Preservation of music, media, games are all being attacked in the name of profits. Future generations will not be able to enjoy the vast wealth we're creating because folks would rather destroy it than make it available for distribution, even for a fee.
- dehrmann 2y agoYou're overestimating how much people will care. When was the last time you listened to Bing Crosby other than White Christmas?
- IanKerr 2y agoTo an extent that's the fundamental issue driving these changes. It becomes increasingly difficult to monetize old material for lack of demand. Should lack of attention from society be enough reason to throw old media into the trash permanently? I don't believe so. We owe it to future generations to preserve what we can.
- RecycledEle 2y agoIs it possible many companies are killing off their video archives because those archives bring in little income, but may have great value in training AIs, and the companies do not want anyone scraping those video archives?
- salvagedcircuit 2y agoIncredible. Server and compute costs continue to plummet yet keeping an archive around is a financial burden. Sadness.