6 ms·
This 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 someon
by sytelus 2y ago
This 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.
- w0z_ 2y agoThis is the same as Facebook/Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, etc. taking something down for "hate speech" or "community guidelines". OP reported my original comment the same way Paramount removed content. Bit of a double-standard. I advocate for torrent, to believe in a large corporation to up-hold content (like a comment on the internet, or a TV series) who is surprised it moved to a paid streaming service.
- jahsome 2y agoI don't think it's even possible for a user to down-vote a direct reply to their own comment. I can't see the post you're complaining about; but based on the tone of the rest of your messages, maybe you were just off topic or rude-atop-the-soapbox and others flagged you?
- karlgkk 2y agoThat’s kind of the point though isn’t it? Why not just put this on Paramount+ or gate that through Paramount+? They have tons of content, why not make it available? Because it’s difficult, and they don’t see the value prop, even even though there may be one.
- onion2k 2y agoThey could have easily auctioned off/sold very old content to someone else.. That assumes they own the exclusive rights to the content. A lot of media has many rights holders (writers, music, etc), and you need to get them all to agree a sale or waive their right in order to sell. That could be expensive because it's involve lots and lots of lawyers. For a bunch of old comedy clips it might not make any commercial sense.
- djantje 2y agoBut is this content available somewhere else then? Should it not have been archived then or given to those who hold those rights so they could publish?
- Y_Y 2y agoIf the copyright system were changed so that rightsholders were guaranteed to get paid, but didn't have veto over publication, how bad would that be? The reasons people usually justify copyright protection usually centre on rewarding the creators, and I think the right to stop people seeing your work is a harder sell. There is of course a new question of how to set the price, but you could e.g. have an auction of some kind where the highest bid must be accepted. (There are certainly notable cases like Mein Kampf where copyright has been conspicuously used to prevent further distribution.)
- eru 2y ago> If the copyright system were changed so that rightsholders were guaranteed to get paid, [...] How much would they get paid? What if they wanted to hold out for more? Would every piece of copyrighted material be paid the same? Or would you normalise it per sentence or per letter? Or per frame in a movie?
- Y_Y 2y agoI dunno man, did you see what I wrote a couple of lines down? There are ways of selling things that must be sold, I mentioned auctions, but also you can get independent assessments like in the case of compulsory purchase/eminent domain. I'm sure you could object to some particular solution I propose, but people much smarter than me have studied this kind of game theory extensively and there are a lot of options. The normalization can be the same as licensing is done now, "per work", negotiating specific usages needn't change, except that the seller has to allow that each covered work be subject to at least one must-sell auction per e.g. year. They can even win the auction themselves if all the bids are too low.
- w0z_ 2y ago[flagged]
- vasco 2y agoAccount from 2023 accusing account from 2007. Mmmm.
- w0z_ 2y agoI don't really care to recover my older account on my MBP with a dead logic board. Do you want me to recover a really old account for a measurement-contest
- whoknowsidont 2y agoAccusing people of the very thing you are doing is quite the play.
- w0z_ 2y agoan old account I can't log into versus multiple accounts across laptop/desktop/phone is not really a play.
- nicolas_t 2y agoWhat proofs do you have that he is doing that? I mean I'm not him and my first instinct if I saw your previous comment "What are you even talking about. When is the last time you went to comedycentral.com to watch something... This is giant self-righteous paragraph of junk." would be to downvote it. I'd downvote it because of "self-righteous paragraph of junk." and because I strongly believe that historical content should be maintained.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whoknowsidont 2y ago> This is complete incompetence from their leadership who show no value to their own content Have you not seen the U.S.? It doesn't matter. The system is orchestrated to existing money-people making money simply for having it in the first place. Even "bankruptcy" doesn't mean anything anymore. Your interest or legitimate use cases do. not matter. At all. Ever. For entertainment or technology.
- robertlagrant 2y agoThe US has the most millionaires, and creates them the fastest[0]. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/10/22/the-countries-with-the-most-millionaires-infographic https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/10/22/the-co...
- bdavisx 2y agoShould that be the goal of the economy?
- robertlagrant 2y agoI wasn't say it's the goal of the economy. I was refuting this: > The system is orchestrated to existing money-people making money simply for having it in the first place.
- whoknowsidont 2y agoIt's not even a refutation though.
- robertlagrant 2y agoCare to explain?
- vincnetas 2y agoThey're not deleting that content. They just moving it to paramount+ subscription service.
- dotancohen 2y ago> lot of my favorite music albums are still on cassette tapes and never digitized online by their creators. Or worse. Rust In Peace was completely rerecorded by studio musicians and that's what you get if you look for it on Spotify or even buy a new CD today! To actually hear the album as recorded originally, you need to find a thirty-year old disc and just deal with the scratches.
- lapcat 2y ago> Rust In Peace was completely rerecorded by studio musicians Are you talking about the 1990 Megadeth album? In 2004 it was remastered, as a lot of albums are, but it was not rerecorded by studio musicians.
- neckro23 2y agoGP is not quite correct. It wasn't completely re-recorded, but Dave Mustaine re-recorded many of the guitar solos on the album, and the whole album was remixed. At any rate, it's not the same (classic, imo) album that was released in 1990.
- dotancohen 2y agoMany of the vocals were rerecorded as well.
- jeffwask 2y agoSame story with the original Star Wars films. Lucas remastered and changed the originals, and you can mostly only get the original versions on VHS.
- dehrmann 2y agoPlaying devil's advocate, it's the artists' content. Don't they have the right to go back and make it more in line with their original vision?
- 2y ago
- bdjsiqoocwk 2y agoTorrents.
- prirun 2y ago> They sure spent days and months of blood and sweat but can't get around to do a last mile of uploading files. The people making these decisions didn't spend any time, blood, or sweat on producing this content. That's why it's so easy for them to discard it: they're only concerned with making (big) money, not figuring out how they can preserve content without incurring a loss. Which, IMO, should be the goal for older, historical content. I'm pretty sure the money we're paying countries for wars would cover historical content preservation costs a gazillion times over.