Instead, we got link rot, abandonware IP, and lots of memes.
Stuff definitely falls through the cracks.
Even the 20-something-year-old promise of Google to "index the world's information" has failed pathetically. I frequently can't find things I'm looking for, because all I have left in my head is a fingerprint of "I'll know it when I see it" and maybe a couple odd keywords that aren't enough to pull any signal out of the noise.
In one case I got ChatGPT to help me find a book I'd been missing for years because the generic keywords like "magic staff", "tree", "volcano crater" returned jack shit on common search engines. (It was "The Ancient One" by T. A. Barron, if anyone else is stuck looking for it too)
In another case I found a book on Kagi.
The Library of Babel is a much closer analogy. Everything _might_ be in there, but you probably aren't gonna find anything worthwhile. lol.
I remember seeing an ad for whose premise was a cheap hotel where "we have every movie ever made on our TVs".
That was one promise of the streaming future... but there was never an understanding that the internet was permanent.
Even during the initial fad of "everyone needs their own homepage" before geocities, most pages were dead or broken or obsolete in a few months.
A large distributed redundant archive of data would be useful... probably with some mechanism where you can donate resources to preserve the data you like without having to support the stuff you don't care about (because resources are finite.)
This is the approach I've taken. Shelves of records, DVDs, tapes, CDs... all gathering dust and taking up space. Honestly the only music I listen to is a classic rock radio station when I'm driving my car. Whatever they play is what I listen to. It's just not that important to me any more. Movies, music, they are just time-fillers. They are something to do when there's nothing to do. When I was 20 I felt differently.
My collection of DVDs and CDs is still flawless after many decades. I have some VHS approaching 40-50 years (Although it’s slowly degrading).
E.g. Existenz and Strange Days
Side note, I first watched Strange Days on a VR headset (the Gear VR) while on a 6hr flight, having no idea the movie would be about virtual reality. That felt pretty damn special.
Luckily there are plenty of DVDs floating about for those films, but you can imagine a situation where a cult classic released now will not have that physical artifact.
It's surprising that something like that hasn't been legislated for film and possibly for TV.
It would be quite doable today technologically.
If given enough warning about my own death I might be tempted to pay for a couple seedboxes on bulletproof servers and just hope the files stay up as long as possible and find many new homes before the money runs out. The RIAA/MPA can't come after you once you're dead.
This is kind of the problem with data hoarding: it’s more about the act of preservation than the content being preserved. The whole practice is based off of anxiety and fear of loss rather than any productive purpose. There’s often low to zero demand for a huge amount of the content.
Just like my grandma’s record collection or fine China, it all amounts to a bunch of stuff that meant something to someone else but not to me. It was offered to me in a vain hope that I might enjoy it in the same way, despite the great improbability of that being the case.
That’s why those items are siting in a landfill somewhere.
I would guess, for example, that most people read very few books that were written before the 1800s. They would be difficult to read, their subject matter would be foreign, and without extensive rewriting/translation/adaptation, they wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Most certainly there are many classic works that survive much longer than a few hundred years, but the percentage is a tiny sliver of all the stories people have created. And that’s ultimately perfectly okay. That’s just how things work. Nobody has enough time on earth to consume such a massive amount of content that humans have made, and a lot of it is straight up bad, or just repetitive of other similar content.
Lastly, there is also another possibility entirely: that the original creators don’t want future generations to see their work.
I think it’s important to remember that all rights are reserved to the creator of the work. As an artist I can sell a print of a painting for a year and decide that it will never be sold again after that. It’s my right to stop selling new copies and my right to prevent people from redistributing copies until the work reaches public domain, because it’s my work.
I know in the case of corporate filmmaking the lack of available works is more about apathy to specific old pieces of content basically being worthless to them, but it’s still a little point to keep in mind.
Even libraries throw away books that nobody lends for a certain amount of time. They have limited shelf space so they need to curate the collection periodically.
Same with digital collections. Yes, it's easier to extend the space available, but it's still just hoarding unless you curate.
Case in point: You can easily get every single Gameboy game for every Gameboy variant.
BUT.
You'll get _every single Gameboy game for every Gameboy variant_. That's thousands of games, in multiple languages and minor version variants. You'll also get rom hacked versions with different cheats enabled for the games. It's an immense pile of crap you (or someone) need to curate by hand to make it an actual collection of games. Going through your memories and multiple reviews checking which games are actually worth conserving and which were just shovelware is a ton of work.
Archiving some lists of "best games" and "hidden gems" alongside it would be worthwhile indeed.
Movies like the matrix have already had an eternal effect on the Zeitgeist of a generation, forever altering human culture in some small way, at the very least. Why worry about it still being on a drive somewhere in 200 years?
Movies like The Matrix don't materialize out of thin air.
They are the cultural and creative descendants of countless prior art pieces.
There's a reason why film creators publish commentary about their production process.
To neglect history is to starve the future.
Yes, but applied in a sliding window with considerable drop out. The world decides every day which art is worth keeping around and which can be allowed to be forgotten. Just because a film is important to the common psyche in 2001 doesn't mean that will be the case in 3001.
By that logic we should stop creating music or writing books right now. What's the point? There are already enough of both that no one could ever have enough years of life to read/hear it all.
Obviously there are a lot of very good reason to keep creating new things, and a lot of good reasons to preserve the old ones, not the least of which is that old works create the inspiration and material for new ones. A good song or a good story is timeless and can be enjoyed no matter many years have passed since it was created.
Media says a lot of about our culture and history. It shows how art has evolved and can provide a lot of education and wisdom that can get lost when fads and trends steal the spotlight for a long time, but when older works are still around to be studied and enjoyed they can be rediscovered.
Your presuming that old media and mew media is of equal importance/relevance, which I disagree with.
There's billions of people and they all like different things.
There are a bunch of movies for every decade that are still "must see" just for the impact they had on media.
I don't believe this is actually the case.
You don't need to see the full movie or read the whole book, but you need to know it exists and how it changed the world.