Hacker News Reader

Comment by plainnoodles | Hacker News Reader

This isn't a great specific example (it's "just" a meme and not even a particularly culturally significant one in the grand scheme of things), but in general this is why projects like youtube-dl are important.

It might not be glamorous, and it might be a little stupid, but damnit this is our culture, for better or worse! And we should preserve it.

Private companies seem to be the only ones with the resources to store all the video content we produce, and they're also exactly the wrong ones to be hosting our collective shared culture for posterity.

It's a shame a torrenting-based youtube wouldn't really work for various reasons, both legal and social.

So, short of that, at least being able to download stuff important to us as individuals is an important right to preserve.

My personal stake in this fight is a video of "Scotland the Brave" that I used to listen to a lot, which featured an older Scottish gentleman standing in the beautiful highlands, loudly and proudly calling down through the glen.

It got randomly copyright-removed recently and I've been unable to find it elsewhere. I don't even know who the person in the video was.

View on HN

> but damnit this is our culture, for better or worse! And we should preserve it.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's our culture and it's our life. Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens instead of being in touch with nature and living off the land or pursuing our own passions? Yeah, it is. But it is what it is. We are defined by our experiences, memories, and stories, and the only way to preserve digital media is to have a copy.

This is what got me into digital hoarding. I hated having so much emotional investment in things that I couldn't even access like old cartoons and movies, videos from youtube, or websites. Even worse when it's an old forum with conversations and activity from your teenage years, and the forum goes offline (this has happened to me with Bungie.net, though thankfully I was able to archive at least my gameplay stats).

I got 3 12TB hard drives this year (1 primary, 2 backups) and already see myself running out of room soon. It probably cost around $600 total, but it's been 100% worth it. I plan to expand in the near future to make sure I have plenty of room for everything I want without having to leave out anything that's really special. I love being able to re-live media experiences from my life, share them with loved ones, and even revisit moments that were defining for me in some way or another.

It's a shame that our culture is so based on consuming media. But the bright side is that it's the easiest kind of culture to preserve, compared to things like a physical book or dance, so I highly recommend others to check it out and be a part of the digital preservation world.

> Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens

Oh, come on. A Youtube video is culture just like ancient Greek plays are culture, or Sumerian cuneiform tablets.

There is an overconsumption problem, but even if it wasn't there, that'd still be the culture that we'd want to at least archive.

Well, most of it is just trash that won’t make anyone less rich if lost. It’s like putting a script of Antigone and a sex advertising graffiti in Pompeii on the same level.

Sex-advertising graffiti in Pompeii are still valuable cultural artifacts that let us know what life in Pompeii was like.

There are two orthogonal reasons for culture to be preserved:

* there are things that will be valuable to future generations to build upon and enrich them

* someone in the future would ask, what was life like in 2020, and without the "trash" culture, the answer will be very much off the mark

Trash or not trash, this is what we have.

This is why archive.org is important, this is why preserving Usenet archives is important, and why I'm happy that many geocities websites were archived before Yahoo axed them.

Indeed, but there’s this concept called “forgetfulness”. We can’t afford to hoard everything, eventually things get lost in time and it’s ok. We will die and so will our own footprints disappear. Something - perhaps the most relevant and actively preserved, or frequent and therefore merely because of statistics - will survive.

But we need to entertain the option of letting go

Sure, we don't need to preserve every single piece of scrap in our collective memory.

But archiving doesn't do that either. There are many more silent films archived than either of us have watched, for example.

Then sure, not everything needs to be archived. I believe there's a reasonable, subjective threshold of what you'd need to keep to get an idea of a person living in the time period.

Letting go and keeping are not incompatible ideas.

This is a bit gatekeep-y. Who defines what is trash and not significant. There are 7 billion people on earth, do you think the same things need to be equally relevant to everyone? Something you might find trash can have enormous impact on someone else's life. One of my favorite entertainment products is pro wrestling, many, many people consider it trash. Should it be thrown out?

No, actively scrubbed in the name of some principle I guess not. Please do enjoy your wrestling but don’t cry foul if It doesn’t survive scrutiny and interest over the multitudes of humanity and is lost in time

That just feels like you want to only preserve your definition again. That is by definition gate keeping.

Look, I’m not keeping any gate closed. It’s none of my business.

If you want to invest in a time capsule for your favorite fancy go ahead.

But please don’t go “ad hominem”-y when implying anyone is violating or oppressing you if they don’t happen to have your same priorities.

I disagree entirely. This quote explains my view better than I could word it:

> The term culture industry (German: Kulturindustrie) was coined by the critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), and was presented as critical vocabulary in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), wherein they proposed that popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods—films, radio programmes, magazines, etc.—that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity.[1] Consumption of the easy pleasures of popular culture, made available by the mass communications media, renders people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances.[1] The inherent danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false psychological needs that can only be met and satisfied by the products of capitalism; thus Adorno and Horkheimer especially perceived mass-produced culture as dangerous to the more technically and intellectually difficult high arts. In contrast, true psychological needs are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness, which refer to an earlier demarcation of human needs, established by Herbert Marcuse.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry

Sure, the output of the culture industry can be compared to the output of any other industry.

That's why it needs to be preserved, especially if it's harmful.

We keep museums not only to be wowed by amazing artifacts, but also to know our past, what life was like.

And for the same reason, everything from Hitler's radio broadcasts to doge memes is worth preserving.

See my other response in the thread.

I think I agree and disagree with you. I agree with the value of preservation, as a hobbyist collector and archivist myself. However I agree with the notion that all culture and aspects of a particular culture are of equal worth. If I had to choose in a house fire, I'd take a hard drive full of my favorite youtube videos and movies, and leave behind the hard drive full of mobile game advertisements and mid level marketing media. Would you do the same, or would you actually have a hard time choosing?

Preservation generally involves not being a single copy in a house that might be on fire in a thought experiment.

That’s irrelevant to the posed question.

The posed question is ridiculous.

You have to appreciate it, though, given that one of the posts on the front page of HN today is...

...old videogame advertisements[1]

The irony is just so, so beautiful.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28692049

> notion that all culture and aspects of a particular culture are of equal worth

I never made such a claim.

The problem is that everyone has their opinion on what needs to be preserved. I might not care at all about what you have on your hard drive, and vice versa.

Archive and libraries aren't Eternal and Forever Storage. Future archivist might as well prune them (as they do).

However, at the current time we don't have enough data to decide which things are worth preserving, and which are not.

>and leave behind the hard drive full of mobile game advertisements

Funny thing you say that.

Because today on the front page on Hacker News, we find... Old game advertisements[1].

Irony notwithstanding, I hope that proves my point.

The hard drive you'd leave behind would be a treasure someone 40 years in the future.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28692049

I'm aware of the value of old game ads and I have many myself, both physical and digital. But I'm talking about relative value. I would gladly leave my old Nintendo Powers behind if it meant I could take my actual games or movies with me, for example.

I don't want to litigate what culture is or isn't but surely being more connected to nature is not going to solve any of the listed problems?

Like anything else this is just my opinion, but I do think being more connected to nature would improve our lives vs what's now being normalized: working in an office all day, commuting, and staring at various screens in your free time. I believe the modern lifestyle contributes a lot to the chronic stress, anxiety, etc that are so common nowadays. This is quantitative, to an extent: spending time in nature has a measurable and positive impact on your well-being:

> Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44097-3

Culture includes lifestyle and activities, which is why I made that particular point about nature.

I'm sorry but I find self reported data about wellbeing hard to believe in most cases. There is such a cultural pressure to associate nature with wellbeing that I find myself being very wary of such reporting.

> Private companies seem to be the only ones with the resources to store all the video content we produce,

If you are producing videos at such a rate that you as the producer cannot actually save the content, then maybe you're doing it wrong.

If you are producing content for the exclusive use/distribution by a private company that is known to have draconian automated decision making processes, you have to expect that you will one day run afoul of those decisions.

The majority of content produced in mass quantity is also content that is such banal quality that it deserves to be lost to the ether.

> If you are producing videos at such a rate that you as the producer cannot actually save the content, then maybe you're doing it wrong.

You can film 8K video on a smartphone these days… but only about 15 minutes of it before you fill up the phone’s internal storage.

If you don’t have a computer with a big hard drive to dump the video off on, you’re basically stuck shoving the video out to “the cloud” and then deleting the local copy so that you can film more. Whether that means pushing the raws to a private object store with an online video editing system hooked up to it, vs. uploading to YouTube where they transcode the raw to lower quality and then throw away the original, it still creates a dependence on the continued existence of some cloud provider.

Comparing an object store provider to YouTube is just pointless. It's not even close to being the same thing. If you cannot understand this difference, then we really cannot have a discussion.

If you are shooting 8K video and don't know what to do with it, that is on you. Just because you can does not mean you should.

When you can get 10TB [ EDIT: 4TB ] external drives for around $100, this is totally absurd pathway to take towards "preserving your own culture".

It's more like $300+ dollars but there's another, more important point: hard drives fail. If we're talking about YouTube creators who spend hours producing culturally relevant content, we're going to want a much more robust backup strategy than simply throwing it on an external hard drive.

Is it possible for a home user to build a storage system with high availability and off-site backups? Sure. Will it be affordable and convenient? Extremely unlikely.

I like your thinking... but why hide a video on a private HDD?

I was just thinking about this problem from a different angle.

What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:

1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory

2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID

3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube

4. If not, upload the file.

5. Delete the file.

What if the original content creator does not want their content shared in this manner? For every view not on YT, they lose metrics/money. It is not your decision to do this.

I'm just so not understanding how the concept of ownership is lost to others.

It takes 20 minutes to sign up for 4 separate cloud storage accounts and upload to all of them.

Or seed a BitTorrent. Or both.

I have to somewhat agree: the more of these services you upload the same file to, the greater the chances of at least one of these copies surviving over a prolonged period of time.

Now, i cannot recall what it was called, but there was this one app that could upload files to dozens of them at the same time, provided that you have the accounts - if the files aren't publicly listed and don't compromise your privacy, that's definitely a route to consider.

I'd love to know where I can get drives that cheap.

Yeah, sorry, i was misled by a google shopping ad summary. Edited the post for correctness.

While a good point, if the content is important to you, then you should take appropriate measures to back it up.

People should really consider storing their data only on a cloud provider that they don't pay for as equivalent to storing it only on a single USB stick.

Even storing it on a provider you do pay for should be seen as equivalent to storing it on a NAS located in your house/office: it's somewhat protected against hardware failure, but still not "backed up". Instead of fire/theft, your concerns should be account closure/compromise, or the provider just going out of business.

Both can be true. Youtube is successful because it hosts so many videos. Downloading a few favourites doesn't impact their business model, but it allows me to save those few videos that I think don't deserve to be lost.

You as an end viewer is not the topic though. I'm talking about the content creators that lose their content when YT makes a decision against them, but they no longer have a copy locally. For them to delete their only local copy because it's on YT just because they don't have the space, then that is 100% on them. I don't care if they are 15 years old and don't have the funds for massive drive space. That's just part of being in the video content creation business. Losing content as a creator is a growing pain lesson that everyone eventually learns. Its very similar to not having backups in general. It's a lesson best learned before it happens, but rarely learned until after.

This is deeply ignorant of the actual reality. Most content creator are not technically savvy nor have the ability to setup any kind of distribution service. Also, you're missing the whole point of video streaming, which is becoming huge.

I've know youtubers that did upload videos as a hobby, but couldn't even afford to keep them locally stored in their hard drives after a few years. Makes the videos less valuable? In no way.

I sincerely don't understand any of your points.

Not being technically savvy is such a strawman. I'm not missing the point of video streaming. Most of my career is because of video streaming.

If you build a house of straw because you're not technically savvy to build it out of brick doesn't mean you get to complain that the wind blew it down even if it was a big bad wolf. If you don't do something right, it's nobody's fault but your own. It's often called growing pains. Backups are a lesson best learned before they are needed but regularly only thought about after data is lost.

>If you build a house of straw because you're not technically savvy to build it out of brick doesn't mean you get to complain that the wind blew it down even if it was a big bad wolf.

Let's apply this reasoning to a few other examples. Let's say you live in the jungle, and build your house to jungle building codes. Then, a logging company comes in and dismantles your furniture to make particle board for IKEA products. One could argue that if you were more competent, you'd be able to form a well-armed militia, build land vehicles and air craft, and defend your jungle home against the invaders, who are not infinitely powerful and could be dissuaded by even a reasonably well-run guerilla uprising. One might also argue that that's crazy. ;)

To put it another way, if being a guerilla fighter is the only way to have furniture in the jungle, we wouldn't expect everyone to become guerilla fighters, we'd expect a few people to become guerillas while most people lost their furniture.

Here's another example. Let's say you're a US citizen concerned about civil asset forfeiture. If you were more competent, you would smuggle your wallet across the states where that happens inside of your hubcaps, or maybe in a drone, or perhaps in a shallow-water submarine. On the other hand, it's a bit might-makes-right to assert that only people who can assemble smuggling vehicles have property rights. Again, if that was the way to have property rights, we'd expect a few people to become smugglers and almost everyone else to lose property.

So finally coming back around to the YouTube thing, if we say that the way to have a platform is to build servers, organize communications networks, and arrange payments outside of the usual system, then we would expect a few people, almost all of them criminals, to do that, while most people simply would lose their platform.

No one is coming into your jungle to dismantle your house, or searching your vehicle to seize your wallet. You are going out of your way to utilize other people's infrastructure.

If you don't rely upon youtube, you don't need to worry about youtube. If you choose to take advantage of the ease and convenience of utilizing their freely-available service, you have to deal with their rules. For most people, it's a small price to pay. For everyone else, there's stackoverflow.

I don't understand why people think it's a corporation's job to preserve knowledge for future generations. We have a government for that. Google never signed up for that role I'm sure. And if we expect them to do that funnel taxpayer money to them. But honestly I don't want to live in a world where corporations provide these public goods.

I also lost access to a most beautiful poetry recitation from an older fellow who has passed. In hindsight, I wish I was more active in saving videos.

It should be automatic.

Can't it be? Like at the router level, maybe?

The router has the issue of traffic and the path being encrypted. It does not see the paths that are browsed and so cannot backup or replace/URL with the new one?

Oh dang, you're right. You'd have to give it the key your browser is using to decrypt the file. Aaaand that's beyond what I can do.

I don't have enough disk space to archive every video I've every watched.

> I don't have enough disk space to archive every video I've every watched.

You don't need to. It would be enough to allow users to download all videos by default as a sort of local cache, have settings for max cache size and cache policy with LRU by default, and also support pinning.

Heck, doing what Google already does with Google Play updates would already be a step up.

One option is to use cloud storage and to pay for it. If thats not an option, how should an add-on decide what video to archive? A button besides the video, how often you watch it or whether you paste it somewhere else?

You can probably do it just fine for every video you watched twice.

Having also seen cool videos in my YT playlists disappear over time, I've been "caching" the ones more precious to me.

This is a problem that decentralised protocols such as IPFS theoretically solve. You reserve x GB on your storage to cache the content you consume and can optionally "pin" content to keep it on your disk indefinitely.

The problem is there are privacy concerns with this type of system as it's possible for anyone to find out who has consumed particular content.

You probably do.

Let's say you watch new and unique youtube videos for an hour a day, or 365 hours a year. (This is a lot more than I watch, btw)

Let's say we have 5Mbps videos, or half a megabyte per second.

365 * 60 * 60 * 0.5 = 657G/year

A 1TB disk is about $50, for about $25/year to store it at home.

If you upload your videos to S3 Glacier it'll run around $8/year (per year, so after a few years this is more expensive than buying drives).

For comparison, YT premium is $144/year.

I only watch about 10 minutes of unique youtube videos a day on average, so I'm looking at around $1/year cost if I want to archive every single youtube video I've ever seen. It's pretty affordable.

I definitely do not.

> Let's say you watch new and unique youtube videos for an hour a day,

I wonder for how many users this is true. I personally watch several hours a day of youtube because it's mostly on in the background instead of music. Lots of infotainment channels. I'm pretty sure on average it's like 20mins per day can't find the source though.

I like your thinking... but why hide a video on a private S3 bucket?

I was just thinking about this problem from a different angle.

What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:

1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory

2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID

3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube

4. If not, upload the file.

5. Delete the file.

How about the ones you liked?

I was thinking about this a few months ago and wish there was some sort of background app that could keep and eye on my YT accounts likes and archive them.

Here it is - https://github.com/bbilly1/tubearchivist

In a comment[1] on a related thread a few weeks ago, someone pointed out that if you pass youtube-dl a playlist URL instead of an individual video, it will download all the videos on the playlist. Thus, you should be able to just have a cronjob that calls youtube-dl on a specific playlist every so often.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28482923

> Private companies seem to be the only ones with the resources to store all the video content we produce

Definitely not. It's an addressing problem. I guarantee plenty of people have the youtube video downloaded with more redundancy than Google, and the OP even has the source files. The problem is that Youtube became the canonical URL for referencing the video, assuming singular power to control that address based on the flawed protocol of http(s), and now there's going to be a lot of strife and damage as we readjust at a higher level.

Ooh. Crazy, not at all thought through, probably bad, legislation idea popped in to my head:

EU Data Address Ownership Directive: All services that allow users to upload data that is then made publicly available, MUST have a method for the user to create a 301 redirect to another location where the content is available.

(Maybe allowing for a "Are you sure you want to follow the link to https://alternative.com and leave Youtube? We have no responsibility nor control for the content on alternative.com")

For basically such a redirect The Pirate Bay got taken offline - many times.

The one uploaded the content may not be the one who care.

Maybe we need a new URI scheme and associated address resolution system for videos and other user generated content?

The proposed solution of a different URI scheme exists. It's called IPFS.

Or, a little older, magnet:

Assuming Youtube video IDs are unique even in the case of removal, we could just create a URN space for Youtube, say urn:google:youtube:<video id>. Another option would be a content-bassed hash, but that would make quality variations of the same video unrelated.

Once you switch to a permanent resource identifier, you don't need to rely on Google for locating the video anymore. That won't replace Youtube as the massive video store it is, which is probably not a (financially, legally) feasible undertaking even on a national level, but at least you untangled one part of the kludge.

As copyrighted material, it should be required that a copy be stored with library of Congress.

It used to be that LoC submission was part of the deal with copyright, but somehow we forgot that and important history has already been lost.

It’s oft forgotten that U.S. intellectual property constructs were created not purely for the natural rights of individual creators, but as an incentive for public benefit: “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”.

It was common in the late 18th century to provide a rationale for the passage of a law, but the law itself by its very passage becomes legitimate irrespective of whether it fulfills its stated purpose. The rationale doesn't restrict the scope of the law, it's simply a belt onion: there because "it was the style at the time".

Courts have ruled that the justification in the Second Amendment, of establishing and protecting "a well-regulated Militia", does not bind the amendment to apply only to the establishment and protection of a body designated as the militia (e.g., the National Guard).

Similarly, IP laws need not "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts" to be legitimate. If Congress passes IP laws to protect large cartels with no public benefit, and maybe even public harm, those laws are in full force and 100% constitutional.

> does not bind the amendment to apply only to the establishment and protection of a body designated as the militia

It does, but only because US code says that there's two militias. The organized militias (the National Guards), and the unorganized militias consisting of every able bodied man 17-45. Since the 14th amendment was written later, that bit of code is now interpreted to mean all adults.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

That's not the interpretation used by the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller:

> The Supreme Court held:

> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Per Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...

If you read the decision, it actually is the interpretation used by the Supreme Court there. You can actually see this in the next bullet that you cut off

> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

You can also see this clearly in US v. Miller, where sawed off shotguns were allowed to banned only because they had no military use (at the time). The unorganized militia must be allowed to use military weapons, which is why you can still go out and buy all sorts of crazy stuff like miniguns if you have enough money.

I don't claim that original intent has any bearing on copyrights/patents being enforceable or legitimate. Similar to the 18th Amendment vs. the Volstead Act, the Constitution merely authorizes the power to the state, while specific laws of Congress handle the details.

I'm making the upstream normative claim: so long as we have intellectual property (there are certainly moral and practical arguments against it), laws passed by Congress should reflect that intent: that temporary artificial monopolies also carry positive externalities to society at large. While incentives for creation are certainly part of that story, I think there is a strong case for reforming that balance: shortening copyrights, limiting/eliminating patents on software and business methods, and strengthening fair use and consumer rights.

LoC does archive web content. https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/about-this-progra...

In the US, copyright protection is automatically granted as soon as a protected work is fixed in a tangible form[1], so it's not possible for the Library of Congress to store all copyrighted material.

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

  > It's a shame a torrenting-based youtube wouldn't
  > really work for various reasons, both legal and social.

https://joinpeertube.org/

I'd take "wouldn't really work" in this context to mean "not be very successful/widely used", a bar that PeerTube has yet to pass IMO.

Yeah, I know they exist. But they're never going to replace youtube in the foreseeable future, so having tools like youtube-dl, which would allow us to load content from youtube into peertube, for instance (or to archive it anywhere else), is important.

You can mirror Youtube channels with Peertube. No need for the extra step.

The two are not contradictory.

I wonder if this could be solved with having several YouTube's. The storage can be central but maybe there can be several legal and sanctioned ways to access the videos. We already have YouTube kids. Why not also open up the market to license YouTube storage and allow other companies to make clients. It's a half baked idea but I think it can work. Right now there is no difference between premium and non premium YouTube apart from lack of ads. Everything else like background playback is an artificial barrier introduced by yt which they charge to remove. There is no creativity in this space because nobody can innovate apart from youtube. And honestly YouTube is shit at innovating.

Peertube is the way to go.

I have not tried it out extensively but it has the same two problems that youtube competitors have. Library is smaller and it's not the same speed/quality. YouTube has a hold over our internet culture at this point and I think only a anti monopoly lawsuit can fix this.

Sure, but it's not our job to pick -- we just try everything and fight from all angles.

I'm not sure what you want to pick.

Indeed. I began obsessively downloading and archiving every video I think worth watching more than once. My catalyst was noticing many of my favorite content creators removing their old content after deciding it either didn't match their current audience or decided it was too edgy for the current climate. One guy deleted a decade of videos after someone pointed out he said f*g in one of them.

To be fair, tons of TV shows have been wiped from history as well. I learned recently that many game shows from the 60s and 70s are mostly gone, including early episodes of Wheel of Fortune!

Yes even public state sponsored broadcasters didn't take archiving seriously in the beginning of television.

Of course before the widespread adoption of videorecorders in the 80s the public could never rewatch anything. Nothing was meant to last.

Time repost such cultural heritage videos on Peertube it seems.

https://joinpeertube.org/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com