3 ms·

I don't know how much hyperbole there is in that statement, really - it's a humungous pile of material, and even if the licensing terms aren't totally clear, it

I don't know how much hyperbole there is in that statement, really - it's a humungous pile of material, and even if the licensing terms aren't totally clear, it's still available for anyone to watch - and moreover, on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin - anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over. Tucking it away on archive.org might have been more palatable to the likes of us, but none of the above would ever be likely to stumble across it there. [edit: my point is, yes, it would ideally have been put in both places - but if they're only going to put it in one place, I'm happier that it's Youtube than I would have been were it archive.org]

aw3c2 13y ago
> on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin Youtube is not an archival website! > anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over Youtube enables country-specific censorship and let's the media industry arbritrarily block content. Youtube is a commercial, for-profit. It is not a company I would ever consider for archival purposes. For maximum publicity it is the logical choice though.
- jonnybgood 13y ago
  Pathe has their own archive which they are making available to the public using the most accessible method. Why would they upload their archive to another archive?
  - bigbugbag 13y ago
    to avoid losing everything if their archive is destroyed. It happened to a musician whose studio got destroyed by fire and he got most of his work back from archive.org it's called offsite backup of some sort and it is really smart to do. Providing you want to share its content with the world, archive.org is a good place to mirror your archive.
    - weego 13y ago
      So you are suggesting that you think Pathe has never archived their entire collection in a safe and redundant way? No offense to your strawman musician but there is quite a gulf in their approach to business.

aw3c2 13y ago

> on Youtube, it's available to your grandparents, your children, your technophobe cousin Youtube is not an archival website! > anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over Youtube enables country-specific censorship and let's the media industry arbritrarily block content. Youtube is a commercial, for-profit. It is not a company I would ever consider for archival purposes. For maximum publicity it is the logical choice though.

jonnybgood 13y ago
Pathe has their own archive which they are making available to the public using the most accessible method. Why would they upload their archive to another archive?
- bigbugbag 13y ago
  to avoid losing everything if their archive is destroyed. It happened to a musician whose studio got destroyed by fire and he got most of his work back from archive.org it's called offsite backup of some sort and it is really smart to do. Providing you want to share its content with the world, archive.org is a good place to mirror your archive.
  - weego 13y ago
    So you are suggesting that you think Pathe has never archived their entire collection in a safe and redundant way? No offense to your strawman musician but there is quite a gulf in their approach to business.