923

Image description: a screenshot from the Wikipedia page for the Doctor Who TV series, with a user-added caption that reads "Preserve the media you can before it's gone forever." The Wikipedia article reads, "No 1960s episodes exist on their original videotapes (all surviving prints being film transfers), though some were transferred to film for editing before transmission and exist in their broadcast form. [88] Some episodes have been returned to the BBC from the archives of other countries that bought prints for broadcast or by private individuals who acquired them by various means. Early colour videotape recordings made off-air by fans have also been retrieved, as well as excerpts filmed from the television screen onto 8 mm cine film and clips that were shown on other programmes. Audio versions of all lost episodes exist from home viewers who made tape recordings of the show. Short clips from every story with the exception of Marco Polo (1964), "Mission to the Unknown" (1965) and The Massacre (1966) also exist."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 172 points 8 months ago

Internet archives should be an entity receiving funding through tax dollars. They should be archiving a lot more of the internet, too, including all media. All tax paying citizens should have access to it through a govt provided email acct. Artists should apply for grants instead of relying on corporate residuals.

Socialize copyright.

[-] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 105 points 8 months ago

Copyright should be set to its original 25 year limits. Then we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

[-] foggy@lemmy.world 51 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Copyright makes a lot less sense with the internet.

The barriers to entry to markets are so low.

If I write a song, and you hear it, steal it and record it, I can't really say "well hey man I was saving up money to get some studio time."

Virtually every market has an analogous situation with it's copyright. Not all, but most.

[-] s38b35M5@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

I just noticed a Disney film with the 100 years logo, and realized they still have copyright on their OG stuff. Too bad. It was never meant to establish a dynasty, just a bit of crumb before your work went into public domain. Sigh...

[-] TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It would be less of a problem. But most of the media I consume is younger than that, and yet it is still at risk of going away at any moment. Nobody wants to even sell digital copies, except for the ones on CD, DVD, etc. Most of the time your only option is a "license" to access it, or a monthly subscription. A couple of years ago I "bought" the new Blade Runner on Google Play. Turns out now you can only watch above 480p on their approved devices. Which does not include my PC, my main device. The same goes for the streaming services, you get shafted on quality if you aren't using a "smart" tv.

load more comments (16 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
923 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

52502 readers
165 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS