[HN Gopher] Almost three quarters of the golden age of Hollywood... ___________________________________________________________________ Almost three quarters of the golden age of Hollywood has been lost Author : prismatic Score : 160 points Date : 2023-04-18 06:19 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.historytoday.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.historytoday.com) | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | Going by the nature of what art has been preserved from the past, | I am convinced that what is preserved is likely either to be | religious or porn. | | Thus, 500 years from now the works they are most likely to know | about from this era will be The Passion the Christ and Kim | Kardashian's tape. | PaulHoule wrote: | According to this tome | | http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html | | it was not "films seen as art" that started the preservation wave | in the 1980s but the introduction of home video which meant that | a movie like | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film) | | was suddenly worth millions again. | bobthepanda wrote: | The article claims the preservation wave started in the 1960s. | | That being said, home video certainly made preservation a lot | easier, if only because rather than a select few copies being | made for movie theaters you now were making possibly millions | for home consumers. That, and extremely flammable/degradable | media was not suitable for home use. | PaulHoule wrote: | There were two waves. | | Early on films were make on explosive celluloid base that was | by no means durable, those were replaced by 'safety film' on | acetate bases. | | Around the 1980s there was a perceived crisis about the | fading of color film, Martin Scorsese was one of the leaders | in that movement. People had all kinds of ideas about how to | preserve color film but it was eventually realized you could | keep in the freezer for hundreds of years without fading. | tristor wrote: | Nearly everything I remember as a cultural artifact from the 80s | and 90s is gone, except for movies and video games, both of which | have been preserved only due to illegal copyright infringement. | Nearly every aspect of my online presence and the people who | influenced my formative years, things like the local dial-in BBS, | some of the Usenet groups, and the many MUDs are all gone, poof, | vanished. | | I imagine more of human culture has been lost than preserved at | nearly every point in history, but as with other commenters, I | expect online culture in particular will be lost to memory due to | the folly of US copyright law, the US global hegemony (primarily | focused on enforcing said laws), and the US being a lynchpin to | the early Internet. | 49erfangoniners wrote: | Should have been less restrictive about ip, I guess. | therealmarv wrote: | Without archive.org we could say the very same about the | Internet. | | Although there is not much of an archive of before 1996/1995 | (it's lost) | xref wrote: | Before that it was 20 years of BBS content that is sadly mostly | lost. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | There's definitely a lot lost from the era of personal home | pages. | macrolime wrote: | There's not much from the 90s at all really. While some stuff | is there, most of the stuff I remember from the 90s isn't on | archive.org and probably nowhere else, except maybe in someones | old hard drives or floppy disks at the bottom of a drawer. | therealmarv wrote: | if somebody has some 90s webpages in their drawer: Please | reach out to archive.org ;) | yamtaddle wrote: | The main geocities-alike web host I used around IIRC | 1998-2001 is just _gone_ , as far as I can tell. I think it | was called spree.com. The spaces were intended to be used by | some kind of sales affiliates, I think, but were _de facto_ | just little ad-free (unlike other hosts) web spaces with a | decent amount of storage (a few MB, I think?). I wasn 't the | only one just using it as free web hosting. | | I've tried a couple times, and can find no record of the | service ever having existed, let alone any of the content | that was on it (mine, or any other). | mardifoufs wrote: | Do you think this might be related? If it is, you seem to | have gotten the name right! | | http://www.4degreez.com/popupsmustdie/solutions/spree.htm | squarefoot wrote: | Something from that era that was also published in the form | of CD has been archived, fortunately. | | http://cd.textfiles.com/directory.html | somat wrote: | It's fine, Sturgeon's law applies to this just as it applies | everything else. | | you don't need to keep everything, there does not need to be a | frantic effort to obsessively horde every single thing ever | created, things get lost, room is made for new things to be made. | | You do however want to make an effort to save the 10 percent of | things that are actually any good. | Aloha wrote: | _Which_ Golden Age? Yes, the preservation for pre-1927 films is | very very poor, 3 /4's was lost, with most of that loss being | things make before 1925. | | Much more of the post-1927 content was preserved (more of it was | preserved with sound once we switched to sound on film) - I'd | note however that Silent Movies are virtually unrecognizable by | modern viewers as being even the same art form as sound pictures | - and sound movies didnt reach the same... production values? as | the silents until 1936-37. | | The period between 1927-and 1937 was a period of reinvention and | learning of a new medium, which is why - my general take is the | golden age of Hollywood was 1939 to 1959. | | Consider what films came out in 1939 - | | * Gone with the Wind | | * Wizard of Oz | | * Mr. Smith goes to Washington | | These are films that still find audiences today, now - 80 years | or so on. | | Most Americans might have seen _one_ movie produced between 1927 | and 1938 - but most people who are above 30 have seen at least | two those three movies at least once. | | And that trend continues from there on - where 1940 to 1959, most | americans have seen _one_ movie released in each of those years. | | So while I dont disagree that we are losing heritage in these | things - I take issue with their definition of _Golden Age_ and | the idea that there is value in saving everything ever written or | filmed. | | Much of it wasnt meant to be relevant for decades, it was meant | to be ephemeral topical entertainment, and functionally intended | to be disposable. Most of the production of Poverty Row, and B | pictures by the majors are like this, they were intended for | Block Booking, and largely just as a way to fill the content | needs of the theaters and as a way to provide steady revenue in | the event an A picture flopped. | JKCalhoun wrote: | 1939? I suppose you have to pick a year and call that the | cutoff. | | But you're cutoff leaves to the "Dark Ages" the films | _Frankenstein_ (1931), _Love Me Tonight_ (1931), _42nd Street_ | (1933), _Gold Diggers of 1933_ (1933), _King Kong_ (1933), _It | Happened One Night_ (1934), _The Thin Man_ (1934), _My Man | Godfrey_ (1936), _Stella Dallas_ (1937), _Snow White and the | Seven Dwarfs_ (1937) and _The Adventures of Robin Hood_ (1938) | to name a few. | Aloha wrote: | When I was mentioning most people have only see one pre-1939 | film, I was specifically thinking of _Snow White_. | | While I do not deny that movies of that era are often highly | influential on later films, they do not lend themselves to | modern watchability, because of the technical limitations of | the medium at the time. _Snow White_ being a notable | exception because it was the literal first of its kind, and | Disney has successfully restored and rereleased it decade | after decade. | | Largely I'm a believer that the merits of the film itself | will lead to its preservation and often _restoration_ and | preservation just for the sake of preservation isn 't all | that valuable a use of a limited resource. | ehvatum wrote: | > Much of it wasnt meant to be relevant for decades, it was | meant to be ephemeral topical entertainment, and functionally | intended to be disposable. | | As with Pompeii graffiti and warehouse cuneiform tally tablets, | from the anthropological perspective, the ephemeral is | interesting. | | Old entertainment that seems alien has a lot to offer for | understanding culture that was. | tivert wrote: | > As with Pompeii graffiti and warehouse cuneiform tally | tablets, from the anthropological perspective, the ephemeral | is interesting. | | It's only interesting after a _looong_ period were it was | very much _un_ interesting, causing so much to be destroyed | until what remained became interesting as a rarity. | | I think it's very likely that process of destruction is | _necessary_ to make past ephemera valuable. | Aloha wrote: | Do you need all of it, or like 30-40% of it? | | The costs to try to save all of it are vast - the costs to | try to save some of it are pretty reasonable. What's | interesting is what has survived from the 20's was mostly by | accident. | pimlottc wrote: | I think most people would agree with you, the trouble is | getting them all to agree on the same 30-40%... | Aloha wrote: | I think on some level the relative rareness of the stuff | that gets preserved, means there is a natural | distribution left for the 40%. | sharkjacobs wrote: | Yeah, misleading headline. The article says "During the golden | age of the silent movie (1912-29)", which is distinct from "the | golden age of Hollywood" which typically describes the studio | era, up through 1959, as you say. | HeyLaughingBoy wrote: | > Much of it wasnt meant to be relevant for decades | | That doesn't matter though. I find silent movies interesting | simply because of their age. It's a window into how people | lived back then. Compare what's in the homes of the "average | person" in a silent film to what you see in one of today's | movies. | Aloha wrote: | Is it? Often the people featured in films were.. basically | only the wealthy classes. We have ample example of how they | lived. | | Also, often movies today do not depict an average person, | they depict an idealized version of that. We have stills of | the real thing, lots of them. | | Bear in mind I'm not arguing _against_ preservation - but its | a limited resource, I 'd prioritize early home movies and | industrial films (what little there was) over the traditional | A or B picture studio output. | justinator wrote: | One of the most celebrated silent film characters was, "The | Little Tramp", featuring their misadventures in trying to | stay alive and not starve, being an immigrant, taking on | terrible and oven dangerous jobs, etc. | BryantD wrote: | And yet Poverty Row produced Detour, one of the best noirs ever | made. The intentions aren't the only thing that matter here; | the art does. | | Further, it's not purely about entertainment value. I recently | watched Les Vampires, a 1916 serial from France. It's true that | the theatrical conventions aren't the ones we know today, but | it was fascinating watching Louis Feuillade figure out how to | make a thriller on the fly, and some of the ideas he came up | with created our current theatrical conventions. That | historical understanding is important. | Aloha wrote: | Thats the _most_ part - and to be honest, in my opinion, most | of the best Film Noir was probably produced by Poverty Row - | even Poverty Row 's output post 1939 became much more | relevant for modern audiences - like on average even a | Poverty Row picture in the post war era had better production | values (on whole) than an A picture from a major in 1933 - | simply because the state of the art had moved so dramatically | forward. | | Incidentally one of my favorite Noir's is _He Walked by | Night_ featuring a very very young Jack Webb. I 'll check out | Detour though. | BryantD wrote: | Oh, man, I envy you the experience of seeing it for the | first time. | Aloha wrote: | I will give it this - the cinematography is very very | good. | [deleted] | ShadowBanThis01 wrote: | It's still happening. Remember the Universal Music fire? The | scope of the damage from that is still a subject of debate: | https://variety.com/2020/music/news/universal-music-fire-arc... | | Even worse is that we have music labels intentionally and | methodically destroying generations' worth of music with dynamic | compression, making despicable "remasters" the only thing | available to modern listeners. What happens to the originals? Is | anyone tracking their provenance? | tedunangst wrote: | A 25% retention rate is pretty good compared to the 4000 years of | culture that preceded it. Who was the best King Lear in 1842? | What made their performance special? | jowdones wrote: | Yeah and additionally, most silent movies were garbage. Even | the good ones are total crap by modern standards. | | Who would have watched them again? A few weirdos and only a | tiny random subset chosen by random criteria. Might as well | watch the 25% that was preserved and is waay too high anyway. | | Some things must just go away. | Aloha wrote: | Some did reach the same production values as modern films - | but Silent Film was functionally a completely different art | form than Talkies. | MarkusWandel wrote: | A release rate of three per day (overall)! | | This isn't that much different from the rate at which stuff comes | up in my modest set of Youtube subscriptions. And what of that | stuff is worth a rewatch or considered culturally significant? | And yet! 100 years from now they'll lament that so much of | today's pop culture has simply been lost to random deletion or | bit rot. | overthrow wrote: | > And what of that stuff is worth a rewatch or considered | culturally significant? | | In some cases you won't know until decades later, when one of | those videos becomes "lost media" and people start looking for | it. | | That's why, as long as people are willing to buy hard drives to | store everything, we should let them save as much as they want | for the future. Because you never know. | chx wrote: | Already the link rot on youtube is significant. Very often I | will find links like "listen to this music it's good", you go | to youtube and not even the metadata is left, it's just an | error page so you have no idea what it even was. | judge2020 wrote: | I know YouTube will throw a video to an extremely slow | archival hard disk where getting 720p requires waiting a few | minutes for YT to (presumably) move it to some regular | storage tier with reasonable write speeds. But I've never | heard of there being rot on the actual data YT stores, and I | imagine it's on the same policy as Drive files where they're | globally redundant, or at least in two different DCs. | beerandt wrote: | It's more about policy than physical existence. | | I have yet to see a definitive answer re true originals | being kept vs iterations of transcodes as the preferred | codec changes. | | Or similar questions about deleted videos getting flagged | vs scrubbed, etc. | | Or who might ever have access to originals in either case. | xyzzy_plugh wrote: | I believe the parent is referring to deleted content, not | literal unintended data loss. | AlexAplin wrote: | Neil Cicierega's Ariel Needs Legs somewhat infamously had | the audio corrupted on its YouTube upload over time: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nH6ya5g2-s | | It actually seems better from when I last looked at it, but | you can you still hear skipping and audio jitter around | spots like at 0:18. I've seen similar behavior on Twitter | video uploads over the last few years. | lesfts wrote: | I've seen video corruption myself on this video: | https://youtu.be/XmWgskZFkh4. It's fixed now but there were | glitches in the video and audio for a couple of years but | somehow got fixed. | prithee wrote: | It is, which is tragic when trying to preserve favorites and | all trace is gone (including titles.) | | I'll intentionally duplicate playlist entries (two different | uploaders) as a buffer against rot. | xmprt wrote: | Music on YouTube is probably a bad example because it's | subject to a lot of weird licensing restrictions and | copyright claims. | chx wrote: | Yes but is that reason to delete the metadata as well? | AlanSE wrote: | Perhaps non-human entities will lament that. Or perhaps humans | who are leveraging more advanced search/discovery tools to look | for specific things. | | Otherwise, there is too much content for anyone to view. | jb1991 wrote: | It's not just century-old movies, many much more recent movies | which were available on DVD are almost impossible to find now | that everything is to the whim of streamers and online services. | | Here are some examples: https://johnaugust.com/2018/missing- | movies | dylan604 wrote: | >everything is to the whim of streamers | | Is it though? To me, it seems much more to the whim of the | content owners. If they choose to not make it available to the | streamers, then it's not the streamer's fault for not having | it. | freejazz wrote: | Except that the streamers don't take everything that is | available... streaming has a cost to bear. | usefulcat wrote: | > A more immediate way of getting some action would be to talk | to some of the directors with films on the list and encourage | them to get their movies released digitally. Ron Howard and | James Cameron are obvious candidates. | | Interesting side note: a couple of years back, I wanted to buy | The Abyss on blu-ray. When I went to look, all I could find | were DVD versions and a crappy fake blu-ray version where | someone had just ripped a DVD and transferred it to blu-ray | (seriously). | | After a bit of digging, I came to find out that there is no | blu-ray version of The Abyss because (basically) Cameron has | been holding it up. I don't recall the exact details, but it | has something to do with him wanting to oversee it personally, | yet simultaneously never bothering to actually bother to get it | done. | | Looked again just now and supposedly the work has finally been | done (?) and it was to be available last month, yet as of right | now it's not available on amazon, so who knows.. | Kiro wrote: | That's not the same thing. The article is talking about movies | that are completely lost. No-one has a backup and no-one will | ever see them again. | colpabar wrote: | [flagged] | jimbob45 wrote: | "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book | rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and | street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. | And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. | History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present | in which the Party is always right." | | -- George Orwell, 1984 | anthk wrote: | Good for your ignorance. Ever heard of 40's/50's golden era of | the comic books, with progressive (for its day) themes? | | Also, by hiding and eliminating proofs of racism/sexism, how | would the world know that racism/sexism was a reality? | colpabar wrote: | > Ever heard of 40's/50's golden era of the comic books, with | progressive (for its day) themes? | | You mean the ones written by old straight white men? No thank | you! | | > how would the world know that racism/sexism was a reality? | | They'd learn it in their DEI classes in both school and work. | genewitch wrote: | by the 40s, most radio _drama_ was not any of those things, at | least not to an offensive degree. I 've only seen a few very | old movies and caricatures are annoying, but it's a product of | the time. There's no reason to wipe it off the planet. | anthk wrote: | I'm hearing the "Old Radio" archives, and Dimension X it's | highly recommended for what it was for its era. Remember: the | sci-fi folks mostly were the progressive ones, just look at | Star Trek from the 60's. Or The Twilight Zone from the 50's. | genewitch wrote: | My favorites are: | | Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar | | Phillip Marlowe | | Richard Diamond | | these are all noir (hardboiled) detectives, although Johnny | and Richard are much more lighthearted... uh, at heart. | stametseater wrote: | When discussing the era of scientific racism, it's a | mistake to assume that interest in science correlated with | socially progressive beliefs, in the modern sense of | progress. | anthk wrote: | It depends on the artwork. Most pulp and scifi comics | were progressive and "scientific racism" had no sense | from a huge intergalactic biology review. Wars? yes, OFC. | | Stereotypes? Back and forth. Cultures were far more | isolated back in the day and the typical " 'murican | Southern/Chicagoan journalist/NYC cop" on a Franco- | Belgian comic-book was given as a fact. | justinator wrote: | MySpace Music can be used as another example, | | https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/b2381s/myspace_... | stiglitz wrote: | That's odd- the first film mentioned by this article (Ben-Hur | from 1925), which it describes as completely lost, is not lost, | at least according to its wikipedia article. Apparently it was | (at least) partly considered lost until being found again in the | 80's. Not sure whether to trust TFA on any other claims now. | pavon wrote: | The article doesn't say that Ben-Hur was lost. It says that | another movie, The Devil Dancer, by the same director was lost. | mortenjorck wrote: | I was already familiar with the perils of nitrate, but I never | knew distribution patterns were such a big factor in the loss of | vintage films. | | I have some memories of the concept of "second-run" theaters | growing up, but I had no idea there was once such a long-tail | network of nth-run cinemas that the total number of prints in | distribution would need only be a fraction of modern releases. | rjbwork wrote: | This is what today's IP oligopolists would have happen to the | bulk of culture. I find it exceedingly unlikely that all IP will | be maintained by the owner for the life of the author plus 70 | years. We know there are gobs of cultural artifacts from as | recently as the 80s (videos, games, etc.) that are permanently | lost. | | Without short copyright terms and the encouragement of | independent archivalists, we ensure most cultural artifacts will | be lost to time. | tivert wrote: | > This is what today's IP oligopolists would have happen to the | bulk of culture. I find it exceedingly unlikely that all IP | will be maintained by the owner for the life of the author plus | 70 years. We know there are gobs of cultural artifacts from as | recently as the 80s (videos, games, etc.) that are permanently | lost. | | > Without short copyright terms and the encouragement of | independent archivalists, we ensure most cultural artifacts | will be lost to time. | | Firstly, copyright doesn't have anything do with the problem | outlined in the OP, that 75% of "golden age" silent movies have | been lost. The reason it identifies is that these films were | "few, fragile, flammable" and that "almost no one thought they | were worth saving." Copies weren't going to magically appear: | if they were fragile, expensive to produce, and viewed as | ephemeral _nothing_ short of some kind of expensive government | mandate would have led to much higher preservation rates. Such | a mandate would not happen unless there was a contemporary | interest in preservation, _which there wasn 't_. | | Secondly, running an archive isn't free. Short copyright terms | might actually lead to _less_ preservation, since that would | make the creator be even _less_ motivated to preserve the work | for the long term. I 'm not sure what you mean by "independent | archivalists," but if it's data hoarders (individuals or | collectively) that's not really going to cut it. The data on | someone's hard drive array is very unlikely live past its | owner, it will be almost certainly junked by the heirs to the | estate. Preservation really requires an institution. | cogman10 wrote: | > Secondly, running an archive isn't free. Short copyright | terms might actually lead to less preservation, since that | would make the creator be even less motivated to preserve the | work for the long term. | | Yet archives have very high public value. We've recognized | that since the formation of the library of congress. | | The issue I think we have is we already have a system | mandated to archive copyrighted material, yet it's not been | advanced to accommodate the digital era and there's no | mandate that IP holders aid it in retention. | | I think increasing public spending so the likes of | archive.org can continue to function would be a net good for | society. | javajosh wrote: | Surely that much data has value somewhere, and a marketplace | can be formed where decaying film on one side is auctioned to | AI training data stores on the other. Older material is more | valuable since it starts human measurement earlier, and so can | predict longer-term shifts. | | (Imagination in service to neoliberal capitalism - it's a real | world _Hyperion_ novel, forums like this mind-jack you with | arcane symbols into miniscule wiggles in the GHz range, roughly | 1500*8 bytes of them at a time, pushed through a radio, into | the kernel, into a program, and spat out into an array of | glowing quantum effects... But still, even here, Buster Keaton | is funny.) | snowwrestler wrote: | Copyright laws govern distribution, and permit noncommercial | uses such as archiving copies. Technologically it has never | been easier to capture and store media, and many people and | organizations do. | | Things from the 80s are permanently lost simply because no one | bothered to preserve copies of them. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Yeah it's easy, but nobody does it for real. | | I live in a small country with a weird language, that was one | a part of a larger country with a few other weird languages | and a lot of good music. | | A bunch of that music is lost forever now... some newer | artists still play the old songs, but there are no recorded | originals. For some songs you can only find shitty quality | recordings on youtube when someone recorded an audio tape to | a youtube video at shitty quality and split into 10minute | chunks. Original recording studios don't exist anymore, CDs | maybe existed, maybe not, tapes surely did, but those | degraded a lot, modern streaming has made piracy hard, since | there are not a lot of listeners who would rip that, and | youtube only has that song in a video format, with a video | intro, and a silent part in between to make the video make | sense (unlike a radio edit). And even if people somehow | downloaded and stored that music, how am I supposed to get it | too? Torrenting is hard for many people, services like kazaa | don't exist anymore, existing torrent sites close down, zero | seeders on what's left over and even less ways to actually | find it online. | | Yeah, sure, all that music could fit on a single modern hard | drive, but nobody put it there and made it available for | others, and in turn, it is lost, either fully (noone has the | HQ original anymore) or partially (some people have it, for | now, but others are unable to obtain it). | | I'd much prefer some national archive taking those recordings | (music, videos, books, etc.), digitizing them (or preferably | starting with a digital version) and then offer it for | download after some reasonable amount of time (which would be | way shorter than death+70 years). A good indicator for 'when' | would be the availability of the media... Am I unable to buy | it in a reasonable way for a reasonable price? Ok, it's | protected. Noone is selling it anymore, or not selling it in | my country (even digitally)... the author/publshed obviously | doesn't want my money, so why complain if it's on offer for | free. | | TLDR: think of your favourite non-mainstream band from 20 | years ago and try to download their songs.. good luck with | that. | bratwurst3000 wrote: | What Alan lomax did or what fat possum record are doing is | extremely hard work and it's sad that there aren't many | more people like those. If somone would start a kickstarter | to preserve old traditional music I would be the first to | support them. | | Btw if you don't know them there is a amazing documentary | from fat possum about their work on YouTube. | dclowd9901 wrote: | It seems like there needs to be some understanding of | "benefitting from one's own work" as part of this conversation. | | If I make a thing, and am actively providing it for | consumption, I have an interest in maintaining its integrity. | | Contrarily, if I have made something, but it's just sitting | idling away as something I simply own as an IP, it will be | allowed to languish, in every sense of the word. | | There are similar concepts with trademarks; if you don't | actively defend trademark usages, you stand the risk of losing | it to the public domain. | | Likewise, if you don't actually provide your creation to the | public in a consumable way, you should lose the ability to | claim it. | GalenErso wrote: | I download YouTube videos I like. A number of them aren't | available anymore. As far as I am aware, I have the last | backups. I've also downloaded obscure .swf files and weird | soundtracks and sound effects from obscure and now deprecated | flash games I used to play in my youth. | Ruthalas wrote: | If you feel like chatting with others who also archive | YouTube (and other) content, consider stopping by my discord | server: https://discord.gg/rgBHGm9mTC | | We maintain a central list [1] of content that various | members have archived, so that when content is removed from | YouTube, people can direct inquiries to contributors who have | archived that content. | | It's a small way to keep track of what things have been | successfully archived, and sometimes direct efforts to | preserve specific content. | | [1] https://tinyurl.com/v4rpe9w | hakonhaki wrote: | Not a huge collector but so checkout moonwalk.swf | | Not too hard to find, but a beautiful animation of a human | struggling yo walk home on the moon... you'll love it | mypastself wrote: | Per the article, first ever attempts at preservation were | intended for copyright protection. I'm not following the logic | of why IP owners would _want_ media to become lost. | judge2020 wrote: | I don't think copyright has much to do with it, but rather the | lack of (cheap) recording/duplicating equipment people had | access to before the 80's. As soon as VCRs were on the scene, | your average American quickly got to recording broadcast | content to VHS tapes for either sharing it with friends or | personal archival. | zehaeva wrote: | I'm sure all of those VHS tapes are still perfectly viewable | today! | MPSimmons wrote: | The point of the parent comment is that, if the copyright | people had their way, VCRs and the like would be irrelevant, | because they would make it so that you _couldn't_ back up | media. It's a pattern that keeps repeating itself. Copyright | owners with deep enough pockets try to build "anti-piracy" | technical measures which actually just prevent people from | backing up their media, while piracy continues unabated | regardless of those technical hurdles that impact 99% of | people. | tivert wrote: | > The point of the parent comment is that, if the copyright | people had their way, VCRs and the like would be | irrelevant, because they would make it so that you | _couldn't_ back up media. | | The (grand)parent comment didn't talk about any of that. | vkou wrote: | > Without short copyright terms and the encouragement of | independent archivalists, we ensure most cultural artifacts | will be lost to time. Which is great for creating cultural | scarcity, because it means that people will: | | 1. Keep buying new things. | | 2. Pay through the nose for rare old cultural artifacts. | vlunkr wrote: | Sadly pirates are a critical piece of media preservation. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | Why sadly? | | If the corporation who owns the original IP, abandoned it for | 10+ years with no way of legitimately buying it from them, | then it means they don't want our money and they don't care | about it, so it's fair game. | | I'm doing my part. | skyyler wrote: | Sadly; because a noble pursuit has been reduced to literal | crime... | vlunkr wrote: | Exactly. If the content owners were more responsible, or | if IP laws were better, it wouldn't be necessary. | jzb wrote: | Sadly because the industry actively fights against it, and | people can be punished for it. | | Also "sadly" because it's not exactly a dependable process | -- we're depending on people to spontaneously choose to | preserve / share media widely enough there will be decent | copies when/if they go out of "legitimate" circulation. | | It'd be better if archiving & preserving copies were a | mandatory step to being awarded copyright protection. | (Which would not displace filesharing, of course...) | ryandrake wrote: | Another sad thing is the mentality of IP rightsholders. | For abandoned songs/movies/works that don't make any | money anymore, they'd rather expend the cost/effort to | destroy them than allow them to be distributed for free, | even though destroying them is likely more expensive. | Totally malicious. Reminds me of grocery stores that | throw out food at the end of the day and spend effort | guarding the dumpsters so nobody gets food for free. | JasserInicide wrote: | Lots of rare music found nowhere else was lost when what.cd | got shut down | WeylandYutani wrote: | This may sound like a conspiracy but I think the industry | wants people to buy new content not enjoy the hits from | yesteryear. | stinkytaco wrote: | I think they want you to rebuy old content in new forms, | pure profit. Or better yet, rent it in perpetuity. | jwagenet wrote: | This is more or less what the entire entertainment | industry is doing with endless reboots, sequels, | remasters, new formats, etc. | rockemsockem wrote: | There was some study I saw, maybe even released by | Spotify, that showed that a massive percentage (maybe a | majority?) of streamed music was several decades old. | | So they're raking in cash from rent seeking really. It | would be healthier for music if what you said was true | though. | charcircuit wrote: | Shutting down a tracker doesn't delete the files people | have. | | The music wasn't lost. It just became harder to pirate. | beerandt wrote: | Do any music trackers still exist? | | Not looking to out any underground trackers, but am curious | as someone who wasn't ever on what.cd and hasn't ever | replaced long "hiatus" then gone waffles. | | Does any active and/or extensive site survive? | tern wrote: | Most certainly, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/trackers/co | mments/tw4ji0/tracker_fa... | dtx1 wrote: | redacted is supposed to be the new whatcd using a similar | interview process and all. | | To be fair i'm out of the piracy game when it comes to | music though since spotify is more convenient to use | akomtu wrote: | Pirates are just independent corsairs. The latter are pirates | who work for the king, they are doing the same kind of | robbery, but since the king profits off it, they are called | "legal". That's what modern copyright holders are: pirates | backed by the king. | strken wrote: | This is wrong. Privateers, which is the more general class | corsairs belonged to, were akin to modern PMCs and operated | under similar constraints. They mostly obeyed the rules of | war, were punished when they did not, and their conduct was | similar to national ships in nearly every regard. They took | prisoners of war and were taken prisoner in turn. | | When one group is taking ships and killing every living | thing on it then illegally selling the cargo and personal | effects of the occupants, and another group is taking ships | and dropping the occupants off at a POW camp then sending | it to the admiralty to be legally sold, the latter is not | doing the same kind of robbery. Arguably they aren't doing | any kind of robbery at all. | bee_rider wrote: | It was the colonial era, right? That a gang of thieves | and thugs stole enough to afford fancy wigs and crowns | doesn't make them legitimate. | strken wrote: | The legitimacy of a government, or lack thereof, does not | make executing the entire crew of a ship morally | equivalent to sending them to a POW camp. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Happily, file sharing enthusiasts are a critical piece of | media preservation. | | Piracy is a violent crime, file sharing is not comparable to | it in any way. | nine_k wrote: | To say the truth, files to be shared often need to be | produced first: books scanned and OCRed, DVDs grabbed and | repackaged, games actually cracked, etc. There is a scene | beyond just people running Bittorrent nodes. | pizzaknife wrote: | If it is as truly violent as the "piracy" label suggests, | then is this not "war on drugs" in another vestige? | nine_k wrote: | I can agree that "piracy" is an unnecessarily violent | label (no swords, no drowned ships), but it sort of | became the standard word in media. | | AFAICT the actual scene prefers terns like "release | group", because it's indeed what they do: release bits | from the confines of DRM or dead trees. | tivert wrote: | > Happily, file sharing enthusiasts are a critical piece of | media preservation. | | > Piracy is a violent crime, file sharing is not comparable | to it in any way. | | Sorry, the meaning of "pirate" you dislike is already | firmly established, and you're frankly not going to be able | to change that. | | https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pirate | | > 2: to take or appropriate by piracy: such as | | > a: to reproduce without authorization especially in | infringement of copyright | unixgoddess wrote: | a better word would be parasites... | rockemsockem wrote: | Quite the opposite actually. | | Studies have found that those who pirate content tend to | purchase significantly more content than the average | person. | beerandt wrote: | Idk the exact mechanisms that should be used, but have long | said that copyright protection of all forms should be dependent | on the rights holder depositing and funding the archival (to a | minimum length of the expiration of the work's copyright + x | years), such that public has access to the work upon | expiration. | | Include a mechanism that allows encryption keys to be held in | escrow, to be released publicly for all drm schemes the work is | released on. | | The LoC may or may not be the best avenue for such a scheme, | but it should be funded by the rights holder as a condition of | the protected term (or maybe for an extension beyond a base | term of ~12years ala patents). | beerandt wrote: | To reply to the dead sibling comment: | | Depositing a copy of a book to the LoC is already the (dated) | default behavior for hard-copy published text. Even if it's | not strictly required, it mostly works. | | But as I said, perhaps you get a base 12 years protection | just by publishing (the status quo, but shorter base term), | and only register the source/ archive if protection beyond | that is financially worthwhile. | | DRM content that wants DMCA type protection (hopefully a more | reasonably thought out protection) requires a single tested | key in escrow per protected work, or doesn't get any | circumvention or takedown protection. | | The exact mechanisms and terms would need to be tweaked by | format and maybe even market, but the idea is to create | underlying aligned incentives, without unduly burdening | casual creators who might not wish to opt-in. | sacrosancty wrote: | [dead] | breck wrote: | Stephan Kinsella's talk "Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious | Arguments for IP", is a must watch. There's no reason to have | IP law and in fact there is actually good reason to believe | they stand on shaky legal ground. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0RXfGGMGPE | | One of the arguments he brings up is that the Constitution | specifically says "To promote the Progress of Science and | useful Arts". It can be argued that IP law does not do this. In | fact it does the opposite. As soon as you have a patent or | copyright on something you are incentivized to _not_ promote | the progress of science and arts, at least not until your | monopoly terms expire (which is never, with the copyright | extensions). | CamArchibald wrote: | [dead] | justinator wrote: | Someone's gunna lose the private key for all that DRM media and | then whoops. | sacrosancty wrote: | [dead] | bazoom42 wrote: | It is not illegal to own and preserve media which is still | under copyright. IP is not the problem, the problem is nobody | cared until it was too late. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | Format shifting in the US is only permitted for audio | recordings. Doing the same for video is a copyright violation | even if you keep it to yourself. | throwaway6477 wrote: | [dead] | irrational wrote: | What makes it the golden age? I'd much rather have Raiders of the | Lost Ark than Metropolis. | iamerroragent wrote: | It's just a conveniention as far as I am aware. Similar one is | applied to comics. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age | jdfellow wrote: | There's a long-standing convention of "golden age" meaning the | first age, when an art came into its own. A "silver age" | follows if there's a revolution in the art, often with some | sort of decline between. | Aloha wrote: | Its not an unreasonable thought to consider Silent Films and | Sound Films to be completely different art forms as well. | BudaDude wrote: | I wonder if that means we are currently in the golden age of | AI Art | stametseater wrote: | Who needs Rome? Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas is much better... | | Seriously, of all the modern movies to pick, you choose one | who's entire shtick is referencing and celebrating (or | commercially exploiting) memory of the old movies you mean to | denigrate with this comparison? | MisterBastahrd wrote: | There's a lot of dismissive posts in this thread, and I think | some people are missing an issue here. | | When documenting the history of anything, it's rarely a bad thing | to have a lot of data. Here, the preservation of these films is a | documentation of history. When we talk about the art form of | film, we see the giants and then work backwards. How much has | Spielberg, for example, benefitted from being able to watch | Kurosawa? Who influenced Kurosawa? Who influenced the people who | influenced Kurosawa? Yeah, it's a bit like counting turtles, but | since when has adding granularity to our knowledge-base ever been | a bad thing? If it turns out that Kurosawa didn't create a | technique because someone else did it first, that doesn't matter, | because he still did something that synthesized it into something | special. Even the giants stood on shoulders. | charles_f wrote: | And yet "reaction" videos with someone stealing content and | looking bored in the bottom left of your screen will still be | available for everyone for the ages to come. | jmclnx wrote: | Well I thought the Golden Age was the 30s and 40s, not the Silent | Era. But sad to hear many of those old pictures are gone. | glofish wrote: | Is it really a big deal that some really old movies are lost ... | sorry but I just don't see why ... | | I wish lots of content disappeared - in the past the passage of | time was a way to filter for quality, because we only bothered to | preserve something worth preserving. | | Forgetting is also a gift - it is is foolish to think that you | have to preserve everything. | | I think it is a much bigger problem that too much of today's | photos and videos are preserved. | | Every phenomenal photo of a sunset takes away the future | generation's credit when recreating an identically phenomenal | sunset. | | The current archival processes are something so radically new, we | don't yet understand how it shapes society. | duped wrote: | > Every phenomenal photo of a sunset takes away the future | generation's credit when recreating an identically phenomenal | sunset. | | It also takes away future generations' knowledge that such a | phenomenal photo can be taken and potentially the means to do | so. | troutwine wrote: | > I wish lots of content disappeared - in the past the passage | of time was a way to filter for quality, because we only | bothered to preserve something worth preserving. | | While I agree that preserving through something through time | does take intentional effort I disagree that this acts as a | 'quality' filter. What we've received from the past comes to us | through a surprising amount of accidents, or close scrapes. | Beowulf exists now in millions of copies but the original is a | single, damaged codex. Was Beowulf worth preserving more than | the other, now lost oral poems of that era? Gilgamesh was | popular in the ancient world and was told and retold, yet we | still don't have and may never have a complete Gilgamesh. Is it | not worth preserving? It may be, through sheer blind luck, that | in 10,000 years some trade paperback you have in your home | right now will be the only written example of your native | tongue. Is all the literature composed in your tongue not worth | preserving? | | > The current archival processes are something so radically | new, we don't yet understand how it shapes society. | | Are they so new? And, as to how archival practices shape | society, I think you need only look at the European Renaissance | to see what a rediscovery of the past will do to a people. Or, | consider the rediscovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls on Biblical | scholarship in the modern era. | sonofhans wrote: | "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." I | find that more compelling than, "Erase the past so we can build | again." | | The primary function of culture is to pass knowledge and habits | to the next generation. If we remember the past we can build on | it -- standing on the shoulders of giants, as they say -- | rather than re-finding old mistakes. | | Old movies teach us about (of course) old movies, and that's | interesting for anyone learning the art. Even in very dated art | there is often something worth copying, stealing, learning | from. | | Old movies teach us about ourselves, and in a more visceral way | than any other art form. Some of those old movies show cultural | context in a way that's difficult to document -- clothes, | street signs, mannerisms, slang. | | There are already plenty of forces intent upon the destruction | of old cultural artifacts, from Egyptian pharaohs breaking | monuments of prior rulers, to the burning of the library at | Alexandria, to the looting of the Baghdad museums in the Gulf | War. That doesn't even account for the primary killers of old | culture: mildew, insects, rot, loss, indifference, repurposing. | | It's a miracle when any old culture survives. It's a good | thing. | monsieurgaufre wrote: | While i somewhat agree with you, i do not share your | optimism. We already have lots of information to prevent from | repeating errors from the past. Yet, more than i'd like seem | to creep out of the shadows right now. | | And I'm not even talking about the intrinsic value (or lack | thereof) of a cultural item. | WalterBright wrote: | Yeah, but we still don't learn from mistakes with well-known | history behind them. | | For example, I still hear from smart, educated people that we | can stop illegal drug use by applying severe punishment to | the drug suppliers. | usefulcat wrote: | It might be that knowledge of the past is necessary but not | sufficient to avoid repeating previous mistakes. | | The fact that some people lack knowledge (whether by choice | or by accident) is hardly a compelling argument against its | utility. | glofish wrote: | Remembering the past does not mean remember every single | pointless thing. | | Lots of things in the past were not worth the paper they were | printed on. | danaris wrote: | Talk to an archaeologist sometime. | | Some of the most valuable finds in terms of learning about | past societies have been very ordinary things: the everyday | objects that we make, use, and keep says so much about us | that doesn't get put into official records. | | Archival isn't just for entertainment. It's for research, | for history, and for remembering and understanding where | we've come from. | glofish wrote: | how about the current era, where every human generates | thousands of photos per year ... is that a history worth | remembering and will it help where we've come from? | | I am not saying to not study history, I am saying storing | everything is probably worse than storing half of it. | ShroudedNight wrote: | There's a line in an old Time Team episode about how Phil | Harding [I think] had found one of the most exciting | things an archaeologist could find: [Totally deadpan] "A | ditch." | | Indeed, the things that make good historical evidence are | very frequently rather counter-intuitive. | sonofhans wrote: | That is a common attitude. Consider also that "worth" is | relative. I'd burn the Mona Lisa for heat to keep my family | alive, but that doesn't mean it has no worth. | | The writer & engraver William Blake, one of the most | influential artists of the last few centuries, was so poor | that he had to melt down his copper printing plates once | he'd used them. He couldn't afford to buy more copper. | Blake's technique was unique in all of printing, and a | little insane, and fantastically detailed. Having all his | original plates would be glorious. | | So was it that those plates were worth nothing? Not at all. | He had to feed his family. | | And note that no one -- no one at all -- is arguing to | "remember every single pointless thing." That's a straw | man. You'll have better discussions if you avoid such | things. | glofish wrote: | Imagine that Mona Lisa was lost shortly after its | creation ... do you think we would not have something | else like Mona Lisa in its place? | | Society created the value of Mona Lisa out of nothing. It | is not such a unique thing - there are tens of thousands | of paintings that could be just as valuable. | jpollock wrote: | Lots of things have been lost because people didn't | consider them worth paper. | | What is important ends up being very strange. Ephemera | become _very_ important. | | For example, how did women care for their hair during | Victorian times? Did they wash their hair? What with? Lye | soap is really strong, and they didn't have detergent based | shampoos. | | So, what did they use? | | That example came to mind because it was the focus of one | of the "live a while in the shoes of someone from time X" | on TV. It was a huge thing for the women of the house to be | able to care for their hair, and no one knew how it was | done! | | What we consider useless to keep now may become extremely | important to a future historian. | pizzaknife wrote: | "Yellow Journalism" - a contemporary appreciation might | have gone a long way | randmeerkat wrote: | > The primary function of culture is to pass knowledge and | habits to the next generation. | | At first glance this makes sense, but then if that was really | the case, why are we losing cultural artifacts and not | protecting them..? Why is copyright law continuing to be | weaponized to such an extent..? Maybe what culture "was" has | changed and modern culture is just one of ownership and | consumerism. | libraryatnight wrote: | I don't know that I'd argue - in the case of cultural artifacts | - that time is a quality filter. I'm certainly glad that it | seems as much good stuff survives as we have, but we also find | lots of interesting things after the fact and in spite of | ourselves. We make a decent attempt at archiving things of | cultural significance so far as we can assess such things in | our own time is about as generous as I'd get. | | Also it's a weird idea that we should forget things so that | someone later can feel special when they do it again. Really | weird. | JasonFruit wrote: | In music, at least, I've reluctantly concluded that time is | an almost infallible judge. I'm a violist, and we have very | little repertoire, so we're always excited when we discover a | viola piece among the works of a forgotten or little-known | composer from the 19th century or earlier, but almost | invariably, it's either mediocre or outright trash. Zelter, | Sitt, Ritter, Zitterbart, Firket, Rougnon, -- it sounds like | I'm making these names up, but I'm not -- mediocrities all. | As a professor of mine was fond of pointing out to me, | "There's a reason we haven't heard _x_," where _x_ is the new | find of the day. | hedora wrote: | I think that was more true when less stuff was being | produced, and the cost of keeping a copy was non-zero. | | Those things stopped being true ~ 100 years ago, so now we | end up with strange filters. For example, a large number of | high-value film masters were lost in a single warehouse | fire. (Arguably, shorter copyright terms would have | prevented that, since distributors and fans would have had | geographically distributed backups that the film studio had | little financial incentive to maintain). | JasonFruit wrote: | Those are all good points. | WalterBright wrote: | As a musician, perhaps you can answer this for me. | | It seems that people who play a guitar try their hand at | composing music. But the people who play violins and other | orchestral instruments appear to be satisfied playing other | peoples' compositions. | | Why is that? Have you tried to compose new viola pieces? | tzs wrote: | I don't play viola or any other orchestra instrument, but | do play some guitar, so much of this is just a guess. | | I'd guess that a big factor is that guitar is a good solo | instrument. It can do melody and chords well. You can get | a good full sounding piece of music out of a guitar. Also | if you want you can sing while you play so it works great | if you want to add words to your composition. | | Most orchestra instruments don't really work nearly as | well solo. Yes, many classical pieces include solos for | various instruments but those solos are meant to be in | the context of the orchestra or string quartet or | whatever. If all you've got is a lone violinist while | that can be beautify it is not going to have the richness | that you can get from a lone guitar (or a lone piano). | Also for many orchestra instruments singing while playing | them might be hard or annoying. | | So if I want to try composing for my guitar, I only have | to get good enough at composing to compose decent guitar | music. | | A violist would probably need to get good enough to | compose for viola and for at least the rest of a string | quartet. | WalterBright wrote: | While it's true you cannot sing while playing the | trumpet, Herp Alpert could make his trumpet sing! | | But still, he played covers of other peoples' songs. | JasonFruit wrote: | I do compose and make arrangements -- and am firmly a | mediocrity. In fact, lots of the great composers were | violists: Bach, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Britten, Dvorak, | and others. Most of them also played a keyboard | instrument, which is a useful tool for a composer, but a | violist is perfectly placed to understand the orchestra | as a whole, and is usually not saddled with too difficult | a part, so they can spare some attention. | | Also, violinists who composed were very common, but their | works tend to display skill rather than profundity. | Paganini is a good example: delightful melody, amazing | technical displays, but not a lot to sink your teeth | into. | yamtaddle wrote: | I think it's a genre thing. I bet you can find plenty of | violinists, at least, composing music, in the bluegrass | scene, for example. | | Instruments that rarely feature as regular parts of more | folk-derived genres, sure, probably not so much. Viola, | French Horn, that kind of thing. | glofish wrote: | > Also it's a weird idea that we should forget things so that | someone later can feel special when they do it again. Really | weird. | | What would you think of a service, that when you take a | photograph that is beautiful, unique and moving for you and | say you want to share it with someone else - would pop in and | would should an image just like it - only a better with some | additional elements that make it even more breathtaking - | taken by someone else and would recommend you to send that | | wouldn't you prefer to have your own emotions? | at_a_remove wrote: | Stoker's widow won a lawsuit and all of the copies of | _Nosferatu_ were destroyed. Well, all but one. Every copy today | has that source, that accidental source, as its ancestor. | | "Bothering to preserve" is a terribly blunt filter. Luck (good: | a crazed archivist; bad: a nitrate fire) is too fickle to | select for the best. | | It isn't just the films themselves: often, we have no sense of | a given actor's career. We know that they had a huge impact at | the time, but we have only secondhand evidence of it. | jutrewag wrote: | The mistake was letting a widow have a say in anything. | blakesterz wrote: | Turns out to be a pretty interesting story, and one that I | somehow never heard! | | https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/17/dracula-vs- | nosfer... | [deleted] | pjc50 wrote: | Couple of these "who cares about old stuff" comments on here | and I worry that this is the dark side of the AI revolution; | once you're hooked up to the infinite content hose, or Bach | faucet, you're adrift from culture as a continuous succession | of works by humans engaged in conversation with one another. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-04-19 23:00 UTC)