"This archive is a treasure trove unrivalled in historical and cultural significance that should never be forgotten."
However, I am left wondering why "[u]ploading the films to YouTube seemed like the best way to make sure of that."
Perhaps fittingly, there's no clear indication which
licence, if any, is applicable.
What could've possibly impeded a parallel
upload to the Internet Archive?
Tucking it away on archive.org might have been more palatable to the likes of us, but none of the above would ever be likely to stumble across it there.
[edit: my point is, yes, it would ideally have been put in both places - but if they're only going to put it in one place, I'm happier that it's Youtube than I would have been were it archive.org]
Youtube is not an archival website!
> anyone who owns a smartphone and has successfully watched videos of cats falling over
Youtube enables country-specific censorship and let's the media industry arbritrarily block content.
Youtube is a commercial, for-profit. It is not a company I would ever consider for archival purposes. For maximum publicity it is the logical choice though.
It happened to a musician whose studio got destroyed by fire and he got most of his work back from archive.org
it's called offsite backup of some sort and it is really smart to do. Providing you want to share its content with the world, archive.org is a good place to mirror your archive.
And the same argument applies - why flickr? Or at least, why only flickr? Executives not willing to give up control is the answer. It's difficult for people who generally make a living from renting access to the public to imagine releasing something in a way that they couldn't revoke later. It's a major break from that possessive thinking to even release the stuff to a third party rather than commission some monstrous UI for their own site.
If you want it in the public domain, give it to archive.org or make torrents. The public will do the uploading to youtube and flickr.
Edit: I hasten to add that a parallel upload would be a great idea, and you should suggest it to Mediakraft, the company handling the material. Their work is ongoing and an archive.org page would be a highly appropriate addition.
Everything from Flying cars...
...robotic car parks...
.. the tarring of roads...
To the imagination of science...
gravity powered generators..
something called wind energy(?)
and the miracle of democracy...
"It has weights that spin round and multiply the power of an 1/8 horsepower motor by 1200% - enough energy to power a town of 3,500 at a cost of £1 a month"
If it's not a wacky-looking flywheel, what was this guy's story? Something close to a perpetual motion machine?
Are you under the impression that anyone thought they did?
#download and save a youtube video, and extract MP3 audio track
youtube-dl -x -k --audio-format mp3 $1
At least they don't have to pay for their own hosting now, to show off their video archive!
You need to have internet access (youtube is a streaming website remember?) and these are not free for some reason.
And each time you visit youtube you're making google money by way of advertisement (and giving away some personal info), of which a portion can go back to the uploader.
If being pedantic, you also forgot to mention that using the internet requires purchasing or generating your own electricity, plus the cost to buy or rent a device with which to access the internet.
In case you weren't being pedantic, what the other commenter meant by 'free' was most likely meant to be interpreted the same way as this ‘can be accessed widely at no additional montary expense than simply loading the YouTube homepage'