They do encode old content but also add the biggest and ugliest watermark in the lower third of the media advertising their website in everyone of the videos. Doesn't preservation usually mean not destroying the works with tacky advertisements that can't be removed without permanently altering the original content?
I consume (and share) a lot of old video and I don't see this as a big loss since you can't enjoy the original works as they were intended to be.
I had a look at the channel and wondered why there was no true archival version provided by either:
1. The channel org itself via "Internet Archive" and/or torrents.
2. The community. It is trivial to create archival copies of youtube channels and most rare true archival footage on youtube will be mirrored elsewhere, even if "illegally".
(1) does not exist and (2) is non existent either, no one considers these encodes valuable enough to preserve, which does seem odd considering it is unique data.
Load up the videos, and you see a giant watermark, thus destroying any archival usage.
No one will fight for this channnel, no one will bother mirroring it, because every encode is ruined and flawed.
If the channel/org has the originals, consider talking to Internet Archive
Oh come on... I read these comments and was thinking I'd see something ridiculously large--maybe even taking up a third of the video--not something that's only like a tenth the vertical space. Yes: it would be better to not have it, but a lot of TV stations had watermarks on TV shows at the time! This isn't that large, I can see through it, and the audio is (of course) fine.
The reason no one is mirroring these things isn't because of the watermarks: it is because all of this content was already just ephemera that most people consider trash in the first place. Hell: I care a lot about this stuff... but do I want to personally spend the money to carry it around forever? This is a lot of content that I will never personally watch much of. But is that because of the URL watermark? No.
(edit: Oh god... I started watching some of this stuff and realized it isn't just commercials but local Chicago news reporting on important historical topics and now I am in fact frantically archiving parts of the channel, though I am definitely doing so selectively; but like, they clearly themselves were uploading somewhat selectively, so the hit rate is higher than I had initially hoped even though it is still certainly a small fraction of the channel.)
The watermarks signify that these are trash, and the real copies are archived elsewhere. That’s why nobody is rushing to mirror them: it’s inconceivable that anyone would go to the trouble of making these and not preserve the non watermarked versions.
And are they going to upload it somewhere we can find it easily later? I dunno: I ended up hand selecting just over 200 of these videos that I'd be sad to not have access to later, and am downloading them (almost half of those are going to take me hours to finish) so I have a copy.
I do think that's a reasonable thing to do. Higher quality copies almost certainly exist but too much of digital archiving is fragile in the sense that someone might have taken all the precautions and... that single person might just pass away at some point.
It's not high art, I'll concede that point, but it has some value in its unaltered state. There's been countless times I was looking for something only to have my hopes dashed because it was being made available from this channel alone. I'll also concede I'm not the average consumer of entertainment. But if this stuff isn't for people like me, then who? If no one cares, why produce it all? If all it does is frustrate the people that do care, why produce it all?
Watermarks have their place, if you're the original creator, but to take works from others and slap your ad on it is pretty despicable (relatively).
Sure: I am not defending that they added the watermark, and agree that that sucks (and would even accept "despicable" as a good adjective to describe it)... I am merely defending that, if the only copy I have access to has a watermark, it has effectively zero impact on any use case I can fathom for the video.
TV station watermarks are usually a lot less intrusive than this www.fuzzymemories.tv wordmark (URL-mark?), and logos are arguably timeless compared to URLs — this one seems to be dead already, says “External Error” when I visit.
Few people who upload old video to YouTube have any clue what they’re doing, and even without the watermark, these videos were most likely not archive-quality. It’s exceedingly rare to see all 60 fields per second preserved.
Not entirely - you could upload a 50/60 frames per second video where every other frame only has half of the lines. It would probably look terrible without the smoothing effect that a phosphorescent display offers, but it would accurately preserve the information to as high a level of precision as you design the recorder's ADC to measure.
I prefer to watch (talking about video)> I mean those marketing vultures can call me whatever the fuck they want but I do not give a shit. I do not consume, I watch, read, eat, drink and so on.
I also feel a little sad whenever I hear somebody describe themselves as a content creator. They are giving in to the idea that their work exists just to sandwich ads around in somebody else’s CMS.
Actually I think if you put your comment and the parent comment together, you can see why they use that term. Because the alternative to the phrase “content creator”, for a single online person, might be: I am a YouTube video creator; an X tweet, photograph and video creator; an Instagram post, photo and video creator; also an ebook writer… obviously this gets unwieldy fast. “Content creator” conveniently covers it all. What I think using “read/write/record” misses, is that the format is not materially important.
Actually I think if you put your comment and the parent comment together, you can see why they use that term. Because the alternative to the phrase “content creator”, for a single online person, might be: I am a YouTube video creator; an X tweet, photograph and video creator; an Instagram post, photo and video creator; also an ebook writer… obviously this gets unwieldy fast. “Content creator” conveniently covers it all. What I think using “read/write/record” misses, is that the format is not materially important, when the important thing is your audience.
Though its corresponding anti-video in your mind is consumed when you watch it. As in, you can't watch it twice "for the first time", and the first time is always special.
I know that. And I understand when marketers use it in their business internally. When the person says I consume in relation to say watching a move as in this case, reading a book etc. it is different in my opinion.
I run a 1980s TV station in my house so I need large amounts of video. I have close to 9,000 individual 80s commercials that get reinserted back into 80s television shows. I don't think I've yet to see all 9,000 commercials but I have consumed them into my system.
I've released the project on GitHub but by doing so I am not implying it's good or worthy of others use. Maybe it will inspire smarter people to make something better.
The title here might be hyperbole, but if shutting down a channel would make the museum ‘die’ then they’re simply not preserving the data properly.
I’m not sure why folks seem to think that Youtube is a good place to archive anything - sure its a good distribution system, but time and time again we see that a handful of malicious actors can shut down entire channels with relative ease.
I would hope that these videos are backed up somewhere else on any of the many bulk cloud storage providers out there B2, AWS, Google cloud storage, etc. etc. etc. and could, with some effort be made available elsewhere than Youtube, or restored to the platform after the current storm dies down.
True enough, but even physical museums have warehouses where the artefacts are safely preserved between viewings.
Analogies aside, I’m not against anyone using Youtube (or any other platform) for distribution - just that it absolutely should not be also used for your actual archive. There are much, much safer and better systems for that.
Those often support researchers and aren't just warehouses but it is a bit disappointing how much of the really neat stuff you can't see without special access. I really enjoy seeing rock and mineral collections and got a tour of the Royal Ontario Museum collection from a research collaborator when I was in Toronto and it was so cool to see.
On the other hand, is it that difficult to get special access? I'm sure every museum is different, along with the broad attitudes of the country, specialism etc. On a few occasions, I have been shown things by enthusiastic members staff that usually wouldn't be on display, so I suspect that with the right combination of genuine expertise, courtesy and patience nothing is impossible to view, regardless of current status or academic qualification.
That's generally the case with most museums. Only a fraction have physical displays.
The idea is that the "stuff" is archived or stored properly which is much less of a burden. When it's desirable to do so public displays of it can be created.
Nobody can prohibit the preservation, that is to say archiving, of copyrighted works. This right is protected by the law, at least in the US which is relevant here.
What is prohibited by law is distribution of copyrighted works. You need permission or an appropriate license from the rightsholders concerned to distribute or otherwise perform a copyrighted work in public.
It is nearly always the latter that a lot of these so-called "archives" trip over. Everyone, including Big Corp, is fine with having their copyrighted works preserved.
Big Corp is absolutely not fine with having their work preserved. See for example the Disney Vault and the recent move to create modern adaptations rather than doing reruns of classics. They are terrified of their works entering public domain and want you to forget they ever existed at all and just pay your monthly streaming fee.
Preservation and archiving can be done regardless of copyright status. Disney wants to renew their copyright because they don't want their stuff distributed.
With a TV show, I would expect the curation to involve exhibits about it. Summaries, context, interviews, etc. The actual episodes should be easy to access and not in cold storage.
In the TV show case I think curation means highlighting notable content and grouping together similar content (for various definitions of similar). I suppose the algorithms attempt to do this but are generally bad compared to human curation. I agree that it makes no sense to have all content available underneath this curation though.
In the digital preservation world, a 'display' is just a playlist on YouTube or a webpage surrounding specific recordings with extra information. In this context, it is certainly plausible to have several distinct 'curations' of the same artefacts being shown simultaneously.
Quality deterioration is another. Youtube has certainly recoded archives many times. 10yo less viewed vids look like crap not necessarily because of the source material..
Sony could file an injunction if they wanted. Trying to defend the legality of hundreds of hours of variety TV is a Fair Use suicide mission, even if you've got Apple or Tesla lawyers. There's probably thousands of legally legitimate copyright claims to be made distributing footage like that. The value in defending it is marginal, especially for a business like YouTube.
> Don't play their game.
I don't think anyone wants to play their game. Alas, here we are rolling our dice again because hosted video platforms don't work without finding someone to host it.
Most people don't want to deal with data. So the idea that someone else will deal with the data is attractive to most people. It's as simple as that really. I used to work at a non-profit and we dealt with a lot of video and we spent a lot of time keeping that stuff organized and preventing data corruption.
"Two episodes of the TV series Bewitched dated 1964 aired on ABC Network and almost sixty years later, archive copies of those transmissions were removed from YouTube for violating Sony copyrights, with MCCTv receiving a strike"
Well you can argue that copyright shouldn't last 60 years, and I'd agree, but it does.
Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences.
"Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences." - Have you heard of jury nullification? This is not a bad-faith jab, I'm really curious. Laws are not absolute and there is no requirement to uphold it if either the judge or the jury thinks it's not reasonable. (Exceptions include minimum sentencing laws, AFAIK.)
> In a civil trial, where the jury renders a verdict that is clearly at odds with the evidence, the judge can hand down judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) or order a new trial. Jury nullification is possible in a criminal context because once the defendant has been acquitted, and regardless of why he was acquitted, he cannot be tried again for the same offense. A consideration of the constitutionality of civil jury nullification is beyond the scope of this Note. See generally Lars Noah, Civil Jury Nullification, 86 Iowa L. Rev. 1601, 1601, 1626-57 (2001) (discussing legitimacy of jury nullification in civil cases and concluding that "the case in favor of civil jury nullification is much weaker than it is in the criminal arena.)
Even if jury nullification did apply, and you were lucky enough to get jurors who exercised that option, one clear consequence is going through the civil trial. You have no right to a public defender, so either you will need to pay for a (likely expensive) attorney, or deal with it on your own.
It's that very same point which makes it acceptable (to some) to break civil law. Unless the plaintiff can actually prove that damages are due, then the preparations for the case (which are admittedly expensive for many) are the only costs that the defendant bears.
In the grandparent's example, the TV series is still available, and so the copyright holder could make a strong case for damages. If it's an otherwise unavailable news report about a specialist topic, it would be much harder to claim that any damages (such as loss of profits) was actually incurred.
The fact that YouTube can simply restrict access whenever they feel like it is of course tangential to the legality of distribution in general.
Excellent points, I wish you had answered the what is nullification question from a comment above, it would have been better written and may have included sources.
Even with minimum sentences, if the President and Governor instruct police to ignore all violations of a law, you can treat it as if it didn't exist. Or police officers can decide that the punishment is so low that enforcing a law isn't worth their time (see e.g. California's shoplifting misdemeanor).
But all of these are examples of other people disliking a law. If the right other people dislike a law, you can ignore it. But whether you like it doesn't really play into it.
The executive's opportunity to squash a law is his veto power. Once the law is on the books, the executive branch is duty-bound to enforce it, as it represents the will of the people via their elected representatives.
If executives can just decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore then we're partway down the road to dictatorship. Judges have the power to find that a law is unconstitutional, but not Presidents or Governors.
Yet, states making marihuana legal while it's illegal at the federal level is a thing. If the federal executive branch did what they are "duty-bound" do to, then this wouldn't be possible at all.
The methods the President chooses or doesn't choose to employ how to enforce the Controlled Substances Act seems to be more or less at their discretion in practice, and "we have limited resources and bigger fish to fry" seems to be a valid excuse, despite this being a judgement call at the whims of the executive branch.
This also doesn’t mean people will escape consequences, right? Broadly and statistically speaking, it’s extremely unlikely that breaking a law you don’t like will result in a trial that strikes the law down in your favor. I’d guess this might be especially true with copyright, since there is so much precedent - lots and lots of people have broken copyright and tried to fight it and lost. Why is this case any different?
Jury nullification is where a jury ‘nullifies’ a legally correct verdict in a trial by voting against it for other reasons. In my line of work, the most frequently cited instances of jury nullification was the 10 juror requirement for a verdict in the State of Louisiana. The reduced requirement (from most jurisdictions 12 unanimous jurors) was instituted explicitly to allow for ‘white’ criminal defendants to be acquitted of crimes against African-American. Following reconstruction, the jury needed to appear like it could have racially diverse individuals serve on it, so they lowered the requirement for the number of agreeing jurors required so if two African-Americans actually made it on the jury their votes would not count.
The typical historical ‘example’ would be the jury finding a ‘white’ defendant not guilty of a clearly proven crime (murder, rape, battery, etc.)
A more modern example would be a jury finding a defendant not guilty of possession of marijuana even though the defendant obviously had MJ in their possession.
> In 2021, six activists associated with the environmental protest organisation Extinction Rebellion were tried for causing criminal damage to the British headquarters of the multinational oil company Royal Dutch Shell. The judge told the jury that there was 'no defence in law' for the protestors' actions, which according to the prosecutor had caused 'significant damage' to the building, but the activists were acquitted
Exceedingly rare and shouldn’t be relied upon in any case.
Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy, and in fact judges are given a lot of discretion about what to do if a jury ignores law so blatantly.
"Further, 12 random people shouldn’t be able to flout democracy."
Correct, they absolutely should not—in a working democracy.
The trouble is democracy isn't working when it comes to copyright, it never has. The 1886 Berne Convention was snuck in and locked in place before anyone realized what had happened. Big vested interests like Sony have had governments by the knackers ever since at everyone else's expense.
The question is how does the citizenry now regain control over its governance. Put another way, rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy.
It doesn't mean "Democracy isn't working" because democracy has decided a behaviour you don't like.
See for example people who think it's fine to shoplift from stores because "they're big companies" or whatever.
> rule by multinational corporate interests isn't democracy.
The MPAA members, including Disney, Sony, AND netflix, have a combined value of $500b. Set aside netflix and that's $300b - 1/0th the size of a company like Google.
Now you might be right that large companies that rely on copyright for control are a danger, but if Sony is a big danger, what does that make Google or Apple.
We are talking power imbalance here, copyright is only one issue, there are many others.
Google, MS, Meta, Amazon and many others are exercising monopolistic power to the disadvantage of others. Put it this way, the small percentage of the population who are very wealthy shareholders and owners of these companies—powerful vested interests—have inflicted significant damage on our society by their control over government.
When the rich binge on getting richer and all others get poorer as a consequence and government does nothing about it then history tells us where that usually ends. One doesn't have to be Einstein to see our society is in a damn mess and it's getting worse.
Disney is a large company, but it's tiny compared with Alphabet - Disney is the underdog here, suing to prevent Alphabet from making money from Disney's IP.
Jury nullification is a bug of the jury system (Which is that the jury can decide to convict or acquit anyone for any reason, be it principled, good, biased, or otherwise), but it's not one that can be patched over without other incredibly negative consequences.
Everyone is all for jury nullification until you get a few closet Klansmen on a jury 'nullifying' a dead-to-rights-guilty lynching trial.
Also, if I'm putting my life in the hands of 12 randos, I must be really, really, really 'down bad' (as the kids these days say).
Many people think the justice system should systematically err towards mercy.
Highway cops might have discretion to let people off with a warning for minor violations, but the same discretion isn't supposed to let them punish people who are innocent. State governors have the power to grant pardons, but don't have the inverse power. And so on.
> Under that opinion, is it equally fair to ignore the law...
Law is not this simple. What the layperson understands as "the law" is what is written in statutes. To a lesser extent they understand case law is a thing. Case law is the interpretation of statutes by judges and juries ruling on cases. A judge or jury can "ignore" the law. By ignoring it, that becomes "the law".
"The law" is a matter of statutes, case law, prosecutor's opinion, judge's opinion, and popular opinion. As we age, we learn more about what is acceptable in society based on all these things.
Jury nullification can be a reflection of popular opinion. It is equally as flawed as any other aspect of society and government that forms "the law".
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being charged with a crime they clearly did not commit?
Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide.
Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal.
Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.
Only on acquittal. A judge can set aside a conviction if they believe the jury erred. Cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of acquittal may even convince the judge to instruct the jury to acquit. If the jury ignores this and convicts anyway then the judge may set aside the verdict.
Then why even have a jury, if in such a case, the judge can appoint himself as a finder of fact, and by himself determine if someone is guilty or innocent?
The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that.
The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising.
If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.
Yeah, and Bewitched seems like a terrible example. You can currently buy the complete season on DVD, or watch it streaming. It's continuing to make money and in no danger of being lost.
Of course it's going to be taken off YouTube, the same as if Squid Game were uploaded.
Now if we're talking TV shows that were last place in viewership in the 1960's so nobody's bothered to sell/stream and haven't been syndicated in decades, then it's a totally different story...
While they should be in the public domain they aren't so I don't know how they thought it would be ok to post entire episodes of tv shows that are for sale on dvd and streaming services.
There is a strong view amongst many people that copyright doesn't apply to them because it's annoying.
Back in the days when you literally couldn't get the programs for love nor money (they were shown on US TV but weren't available globally for years), I'd often DCC them. I'd never claim that it was right.
I seem the same attitude from people who copy an article verbatim from a closed website that you have to subscribe to.
> Just because you don't like the law, it doesn't mean you can break it without consequences.
However, laws aren't necessarily ethical and it's arguable that good citizens should refuse to obey unethical laws (e.g. it used to be illegal to harbour an escaped slave, or the Nazi Germany laws against Jews).
Personally, I think that media companies are harming the public by enforcing unnecessary old copyrights that they have no intention of re-distributing. We're going to end up with missing decades of TV/films that aren't popular enough to interest the copyright holder and that no-one had copies of.
I can buy Bewitched on amazon, streaming or dvds, but that would involve me spending a tiny amount on it (less than £1/hour)
I'm not sure that comparing having to pay a nominal amount for something that's trivially available with harbouring escaped slaves is the slam dunk you think it is, or why another company should profit from your reluctance to pay the creators.
The point about escaped slaves is to point out that legality and morality are only loosely correlated.
I was making a general point about media companies and older media that seems to have escaped you and not specifically talking about Bewitched, but your mention of "pay the creators" raises the question of who exactly receives money from the sale of DVDs. Sol Saks is arguably the creator of Bewitched and he died back in 2011, so I have my doubts about whether copyright law is working as intended to incentivise him to make more shows.
Edit: Just had a look on wikipedia and everyone listed there in relation to Bewitched is now dead.
I didn't intend it to be an equivalence, just merely a couple of examples of blatantly immoral laws. Apologies if that caused any offence as I certainly didn't mean to directly compare them.
Deleting the only available copies of movies (which might be the case for some of these works) starts to get close. After all, I doubt anyone here would defend the Nazi’s book burning campaigns:
The Sony BMG rootkit fiasco demonstrated that they hold their customers in contempt and treat them as their enemies. I'm still pissed about their removal of the Linux capability from the PS3 (or at least you couldn't use both Linux and play games on it as was originally advertised and sold).
Nintendo is fairly average as far as enforcing copyright goes. I really think it’s their aesthetic and presentation of friendliness that makes them seem to standout. Sony is far worse in this regard.
I may have missed something but the two take down notices they show are for the Bewitched TV show. They may be old but are still being shown on television and sold on AppleTV/Amazon etc. - they are still making money for the owner.
I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t expect a takedown notice for posting them or similar shows on YouTube.
YouTube doesn't seem like the place for this kind of thing. I used to have a (not-monetized) YouTube channel with Apple adverts since Apple deletes them after some time.
Even the very old videos got deleted so often that I gave up.
probably paranoid - was just wondering if you could get hit for claiming to have legitimate Tom and Jerry videos for download if you didn't have the trademark for Tom and Jerry.
If they are legitimate Tom and Jerry videos that's not an issue. If you make your own videos and call them Tom and Jerry, that's a potential trademark violation.
The idea of trademarks is to prevent customer confusion, and while there's some abuse and perverse incentives most trademark law makes sense through that lens. You are allowed to sell your used Ford F150 under the trademark Ford, because that's an accurate description. It doesn't stop being a Ford, pretty much no matter what you do to it. But if you build a car from scratch and claim it's a Ford F150 that's a trademark violation because you would be pretending that the vehicle was made by the Ford Motor Company, with their manufacturing standards, quality control etc.
yeah, I wasn't thinking straight - on the other hand your explanation does make me wonder now if Johnny Cash's One Piece At a Time Cadillac would have ran into trouble if he tried to sell it.
Datahoarder here, the drives are relatively cheap, but the overall cost to do it right is expensive. I have a somewhat durable setup (about 370TiB raw, replica count 3, 5 node Ceph cluster). And just that before backups I work total cost to be about $1000CAD per usable TiB. I don't shuck drives though, that could probably bring it down to 800.
There is archival quality data hoarding like you’re doing, and then there’s “this YouTube channel is interesting and I don’t want to lose it, yt-dlp to a USB drive”.
Not being able to do the former doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the latter, especially if the risk is “real”.
(My system is relatively cheap as it only consists of a ZFS mirror array and some offline drives; a major fire might take me out but the stuff that should survive that is offsite.)
For sure, usb sticks have their purpose! I keep secondary copies on other more temporary media of home videos and pictures, the actually important stuff.
Our neighbourhood just recently got fiber to the home, so I will be going from 30Mbps upload to 940Mbps upload in a couple weeks. Then I can get some proper offsite backups going.
My archive is composed of cloud images and volumes for virtual machines for an OpenStack homelab. Then around 90TiB of movies, shows, YouTube videos, etc. Remuxes when available. About one TiB of books.
Do I use it? My wife watches media on jellyfin, but I just have a compulsion to gather data and hoard it. I restrict myself to a 36U server rack at least, so it doesn't take up much physical space.
I didn't interpret you as judging. It is somewhat pathological I admit. The cluster is a bit more than 87% full, at 90% it slow to a crawl. I just asked my wife this morning if I could buy another hard drive (I buy 20TB seagate exos), and she suggested we delete some stuff. I find deletion of files when I do it psychologically stressful. So it is something I should get addressed, but I suppose we should be thankful I don't have dead cats lying around, lol.
I say you have saved it this long keep going. That drive seems to cost around $350. I use SSD drives for working storage and I use platters for archival. I believe the platters have a better recovery methods.
I use enterprise SSDs for cloud images and VM volumes, I have about 7TiB useable of that. I don't know how data recovery from an SSD is, I think for a lot of issues you would have to replace the logic board and hope some sorcery works to figure out the ordering of data with wear leveling algorithms. Rust one can often recover data with something like ddrescue. I don't worry too much, with replica count of 3 for both flash and rust I can lose two drives with the same 4 MiB block and be fine, if the failing drives are within a chassis I can lose two whole nodes before I have data loss.
I wish I had access to a tape library though, just it is hard to justify the upfront cost. My cluster has organically grown over the last ten years or so, making a huge near $8000 single purchase for a new tape drive, plus however much automatic tape rotation costs (I presume I need some sort of tape library for that? I have never used tape before) would be hard to justify.
Erasure coding is only used for local duplication. If you have cross-site or cross-machine copies, you really don't want the speed of the rebuild to be dominated by available network bandwidth.
I guess it depends. I run minio with erasure coding but I also have 2x100gb interconnects between nodes and even with NVMEs I’m not noticing any performance issues with rebuilds. That said with most disks I could see how this could be a problem
There are three copies of the data as part of ceph's replication. Note this is not replication for backup purposes, erase a file and all objects composing the file are gone. Ceph replication is for comparing checksums and that for guaranteeing integrity.
That is all in, including motherboards, RAM, chassis, CPUs, etc. then replica count three as opposed to erasure coding. That replica count alone is 3x the cost. And TiB, not TB, and Canadian prices, with shipping from the US for Supermicro parts. Each node is about 6-7000 CAD before drives and I use 6 enterprise rust and two enterprise SSDs per node. Cost would be lower of I built nodes with more drive capacity, but I want to keep nodes to 2RU to have more nodes in 36RU.
The internet archive became almost impossible for larger uploads recently. Not sure what's going on there, but it seems that both using the command line app as well as the web uploader is extremely slow and larger files will just get a "network error" after a while. Searching for this issue I've seen it's fairly common. I imagine uploading an entire "video museum" is going to be a nightmare if it's even possible in the current state of the archive.
YouTube is not the problem here: its way of handling copyright claims, no matter how much you dislike it, is the only reason it survived this far.
Would it be nice if they added a 'monetize, but don't penalize the uploader, since this is really not something we care about that deeply' option for content owners? Sure.
But the real solution is in copyright law reform, specifically in mandatory licensing. If, say, what a content owner can charge for a license to certain content is, like, 20% of their total revenue for that particular content over the past 5 years, that would solve an awful lot of problems. Plus, make cross-provider access to certain other content a lot more convenient for consumers.
"Monetize but don't penalize" is one of the options for content holders on YouTube [1].
But in this case, the copyright strikes are for full episodes of the TV show Bewitched, which the copyright holder does care about and is currently selling for $1.99 per episode [2].
And I don't know about the whole mandatory licensing thing. There are certainly places where I would not want things I've written or photos I've taken to appear, even if they paid me.
For a DMCA takedown, someone has to sign that they looked at it. I'm not aware of anyone actually getting in trouble for that though. And YouTube's ContentID is designed for automated takedowns.
Probably no human was involved on Google's/YouTube's side either - watch out puny humans trying to operate YouTube channels, the machines are coming for you!
In my case it was. Got an automatic flag on an work composed, performed, recorded, and released by the Air Force Band of the Pacific.
Turns out someone was re-selling it on media and the label had auto-filed all their holdings. So you'd get flagged on every usage.
The sergeant in charge of the correspondence for the band was annoyed but as YouTube is private there honestly wasn't anything they could do (other than write me a polite response to send on that I was correct). I did make them aware of it in the unlikely event someone else asks, though.
Annoyingly enough YouTube doesn't take down the automatic match even when it's a false claim from what I saw.
Isn't part of the copyright law that companies must defend their right in the short-term, else it's effectively forfeiting the protection in the future? In order words, you can't cherry pick. They have to be thorough and consist, else they're potentially creating a loop hole; a loop hole that might hang themselves.
Note: Not defending Sony or any Big Inc, simply wonder how the law is written and how that drives corporate behavior.
IANAL, but IMO, you have several points in your favor to argue that yours is "fair use":
1. You're not (I presume) making money from it
2. Part of it is news, which is more likely to be fair use than creative works.
3. The content is old and the quality is poor compared to today's standards.
4. The current market value of the content is not very high. It's not like you are publishing the upcoming Dune sequel. Current market value and whether you are taking away money from the copyright owner are considerations in determining fair use.
If you are actually setup as a museum or online library, I would think that would bolster your case even further that this is fair use.
As I said, I am not a lawyer and this is only my opinion. However, I do think people are much too quick to cave on these automated DMCA takedowns. If you do dispute it, what's the likelihood this Indian company or Sony is going to sue you? Whether you are willing to take that risk is of course your decision, but their entire operation would fall apart if everyone disputed their claims. It only works because everyone caves immediately.
(Also not a lawyer and not giving any legal advice here.)
Some of the points may be true, but it is virtually impossible that these uses are fair.
Here are some reasons:
1. While the content may be old, and the production quality may not be considered high by today's viewers, these factors are not really relevant. The quality of the reproduction of the works, meanwhile, is good enough that they can be effectively viewed; while these may be less marketable than a copy made from a master, this is more than faithful enough to serve as a market replacement for the original (and thus infringes).
2. The current overall market value of the works is irrelevant. The question in an infringement suit is not whether or not there is a market for the work; it is whether or not whatever value the work could have is affected by the re-used version being used as a replacement. A popular work may have a greater market value than an unpopular one, but copyright law does not protect works based on popularity. Even if the actual market value of the original is near zero anyway, this does not make giving away free copies a fair use (since that destroys whatever market value the original could have).
3. The work has not been transformed in any way. The reproduction is faithful (to the extent this was technologically possible). The copies tend to be of the entire work. The purpose of the work (display for viewing) is the same as the original purpose; there is no transformation.
The channel here is reproducing the original works in their entirety. These copies serve as a good substitute for any copies the original copyright holder could be making and selling/licensing. This boils down to the question: do these copies fulfill any demand there might be for the originals? The answer is yes. This is not fair use.
The question of whether or not a copyright holder strictly enforces the copyrights — in many cases, they don't — isn't relevant; they remain valid.
Now, for a lot of people, this seems unfair. The original works are often not available on the market. A lot of people think that non-marketed works should be able to be copied by non-profits for the public's use. But that's not something the law allows.
I dream of the day when the archiving of the web is no longer a problem: bandwith, storage, tagging, search, etc. All the videos, all the tutorials, all the books, everything archived and retrievable for posterity.
YouTube is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be copyright and if they are copyright, when you put your video in, it gets in line, and it's going to be taken down by anyone that holds onto enormous amounts of copyright material, enormous amounts of copyright of material.
Jon Stewart really nailed that meme in by pointing out that Stevens was simultaneously earmarking online gambling, with specific carve-outs for horse-racing.
If you’re around my age, you don’t need to use the Bing to picture in your head that graphic of horses being able to run through the tubes.
(Jon Stewart also kinda made me and everyone I knew think Arby’s was terrible for a long time.
With great memes comes… the responsibility to recognize that not everyone has Katz!)
I think the ridicule comes from the fact that it had the feel of a regurgitated ELI5 explanation that someone had given to him. You can't exactly call it inaccurate, but it was a bit like hearing "an airplane is like a big metal bird" from the head of the FAA.
(A sibling comment points out that calling them "tubes" instead of "pipes" reinforces this garbled-regurgitation impression)
There is a series-of-tubes metaphor that makes sense, but not his.
>And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
He thinks the Internet is like a pneumatic tube, where too much usage means people are entirely cut off for a time. In truth it's like a water pipe. Too much usage results in reduced throughput to each user, but no one is even temporarily cut off.
Networks avoid queues. A well-designed network will handle email with no perceptible slowdown even under extreme congestion. The Senator's metaphor predicts that email will regularly take days to arrive because of congestion. The standard pipe analogy predicts this will almost never happen.
But really, the Internet is like a global packet-switched network of networks. We deserve politicians who can handle the truth.
I remember it, I feel that focusing just on that portion of the quote is a cherry-picked view. There was more to the quote that showed a misunderstanding of the system, which, at least in my circles, caused a lot of the mockery:
> an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
Tubes or trucks: movie downloads were not causing emails to be delayed by 4 days, even back in those days.
All politicians are bad and politics in general too? That would be a grim and unconstructive view.
The US is a country of 330M people, the world is a community of 8B people. If we want to be able to live side by side, we need rules and policies. It's always going to messy.
I would love it if in the next few decades we improve "the game" and figure out better ways to incentivise the players towards common good.
8B ruled by less than 100,000. Would go as far as to argue less than 10,000.
"The game" is brutal. The players only care for themselves. "The game" is as unfair as it gets. Most don't live side by side, they survive inspite of others. Competition is brutal. Got sick with cancer? Sorry, lose all "points". Want to buy X? Sorry, me (cancerless) will out bargain you.
Really wrong? Consider China. Consider Putin in Russia. Consider the current socioeconomic scenario in US. Jerome Powell (and others, for various reasons) makes decisions and millions have their lives affected. Power is very concentrated.
We don't want to live "side by side" which is why we have separate nations. Granted that concept is being degraded to mere economic zones in which fungible units can be cycled though until worn out.
One of the fundamental mistakes that I think people make is to anthropomorphize things which do not actually act like regular humans. Corporations are the most obvious one because corporations are made of people but do not actually act like regular people. If you put a black box around most corporations and someone asked you what was in it, you’d say the box contained a sociopath.
I am not moralizing here, by the way. I am not claiming that corporations should be less sociopathic. Maybe they should be but we’ve had much better success in aligning sociopathy than in making the amoral, moral - see capitalism vs communism - so I think it’s an open question.
Another group of entities which, while comprised of people, does not act in the way you’ve come to understand a human to act is politicians. The incentives to act in whatever way that is most effective totally dominates their behavior. A politician who does not do what the job asks (amass political power) will not be a politician for long.
I will say it aligns them much better than authoritarianism, but also I’m not at all saying that democracy is bad or that because politicians are effectively sociopathic we should not have politicians. Famously, the worst system of government except for all the others.
I’m only saying that effectively sociopathic agents do not deserve the courtesies, the benefit of the doubt that we afford regular people.
I'd characterize it as "people with sociopathic tendencies."
I don't believe there are that many politicians who literally don't believe anything they support and are only doing it because they think it will win them elections.
Greater than zero, but less than most.
Most spend a non-trivial amount of time on electioneering, and a non-trivial amount of consideration on the re-electability impacts of a given decision, but also do things for a variety of other reasons (e.g. personal convictions, campaign promises, lobbying, etc).
My guess is it was explained as ‘pipes’ but in his head it got turned into tubes. It’s the same thing but because the argot is ‘pipes’ and not tubes he got ridiculed.
"Pipe" has an additional meaning of a musical instrument (which may be related to its origin).
"Tube" tends to be used for larger structures, such as the London Underground Railroad, a/k/a "The Tube". It's also a reference (via cathode ray tube to television, which the Late Senator might have in mind. Even larger structures may be referred to as bores or tunnels.
"Pipes", though, are more usually used as an alternative reference to network or Internet infrastructure. Which makes Stevens's description somewhat discordant. An out-of-tune piping, if you will.
Hose derives from clothing -- "hose" were leg coverings, and in German, Hosen means "trousers". So a tube of cloth, or based around cloth (e.g., firehose). Garden hoses are typically fabricated from cloth and rubber or plastic.
(I suspect that's general trade copy as I'm finding it on several suppliers' sites.)
A distinction that occurs to me is that both pipes and hoses may be high-pressure, though typically tubes are not.
Pipes are often classified by the material used in fabrication: wood, copper, clay, steel.
Hose is almost always flexible, and often used for temporary or mobile applications (air hose, fire hose, garden hose, dryer hose).
Another related term is duct, which comes from Latin ducere, "to lead", which is what ducts do: they lead somewhere. <https://www.etymonline.com/word/duct>
I'm not sure that pipes must be circular or rounded, as "square pipe" is in fact a thing (though a minority thing).
Another distinction between pipes and tubes is that pipes are specific to transport, that is, something flows through a pipe. A tube however describes a shape and there can be structural tubes, either hollow or filled, through which there is no flow. One example is sleeves used to form concrete support columns: these are tubes (often of paperboard), into which structural steel and cement mix are poured, resulting in solid, static columns. That's discussed here:
We also talk of "speaking tubes", which were used for communications, especially on ships or in factories. There are containers which are tubes, which hold and emit their contents, but contents don't flow through them, transiting end-to-end: toothpaste tube, tube of caulk, grease tube.
Some animals have tubular bones, most notably birds.
Putting this together, I'd argue that a tube is a general shape which may apply to a usually rigid pipe or a flexible hose, which are often used to duct fluids (gasses or liquids) from some source to a destination.
In light of my earlier comment, tubes are structural, pipes are functional.
That is, a tube has a through void, which doesn't describe wires or fibre (though one might argue that those have a metaphorical void relative to electric current or light pulses). A pipe however conveys a flow from one point to another.
In that light, "fat pipes" makes more sense than "fat tubes".
Though retro-rationalisation of linguistic evolution is a highly fraught endeavour.
Why shouldn't a business get to decide what content they host on their platform? They're paying to keep that data hosted and the services up and maintained! Are you suggesting YouTube shouldn't have the right to refuse hosting someone's content?
> Why shouldn't a business get to decide what content they host on their platform?
They should. But that doesn't prevent social consequences, including badmouthing them on their rationale.
Your response would be very relevant if the OP was proposing a law that would force them to carry such content, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
YouTube should, like any other business, have the right to be judge jury and executioner of all content they host and provide to others on their platform. Period. They should never be coerced by a government to not have the right to not host content.
I consume (and share) a lot of old video and I don't see this as a big loss since you can't enjoy the original works as they were intended to be.