[HN Gopher] TV Has Always Disappeared. This Feels Different
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       TV Has Always Disappeared. This Feels Different
        
       Author : marban
       Score  : 43 points
       Date   : 2022-12-18 16:31 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.vulture.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.vulture.com)
        
       | LarryMullins wrote:
       | > _For decades before the invention of the VCR, any TV show that
       | aired on any given Tuesday night might never be available
       | again,While I was doing research for The Encyclopedia of New
       | York, I spoke with a curator at the Paley Center in New York
       | about how to find out what aired on NBC in its earliest years as
       | a TV broadcasting company and learned there was no way to watch
       | any of it. There were no tapes. The only record is a filing
       | cabinet, which is part of the Paley collection, full of the
       | carefully typed index cards where secretaries kept track of
       | everything that aired on the network. and certainly never in a
       | way that viewers could control._
       | 
       | Yeah okay... but we _are_ in a post-VCR world. Are any of these
       | [modern, but removed from streaming] shows not preserved and
       | available through online filesharing? I think they probably all
       | are.
        
         | hakfoo wrote:
         | I'd expect that there's a fair amount of local-release content
         | that might not have surviving recordings. Individual episodes
         | of things like local newscasts, public affairs shows, those
         | weird weekend "lifestyle" shows where all the guests are local
         | advertisers basically paying for a 10-minute ad spot. There
         | might be a representative episode floating around, but does
         | anyone necessarily have the December 16, 2007 episode of the
         | Channel 83 Action News at Noon? If they do, is it publically
         | accessible, or sitting in some dusty records room at Channel
         | 83, on decaying tape?
        
         | nopenopenopeno wrote:
        
           | crtasm wrote:
           | They're talking about the shows recently removed from HBO.
        
             | nopenopenopeno wrote:
        
           | LarryMullins wrote:
           | The article isn't about pre-VRC shows.....
        
             | nopenopenopeno wrote:
             | The quote is, though.
        
               | LarryMullins wrote:
               | When I asked _" Are any of these shows not preserved and
               | available through online filesharing?"_, I am asking if
               | any of the shows _the article is about_ aren 't available
               | online. The article is about modern shows from 2022 being
               | removed from online streaming.
               | 
               | > _Did you even read the_
               | 
               | Right back at you buddy.
        
         | happytoexplain wrote:
         | I'm not sure if you're mis-reading the quote, or don't have the
         | implied context for the quote, which is that television
         | broadcast did not originally pass through any persistence
         | layer. It went from the camera to the television, never to be
         | seen again.
        
           | LarryMullins wrote:
           | The article isn't talking about pre-VCR shows, which indeed
           | were ephemeral. The article is hand-wringing about _modern_
           | shows getting dropped from streaming services in 2022. These
           | shows are almost certainly preserved online through file
           | sharing.
           | 
           | The article ignores filesharing and tries to suggest that the
           | ''disappearance'' of modern shows is somehow worse than the
           | disappearance of pre-VCR shows: _" TV Has Always Disappeared.
           | This [disappearance of shows in 2022] Feels Different"_
           | 
           | The real reason it's different is because these modern shows
           | haven't actually disappeared, unlike those pre-VCR shows.
        
             | happytoexplain wrote:
             | Oh, sorry, I misunderstood "these shows" to mean the shows
             | referenced by the quote, rather than by the article.
        
       | rthomas6 wrote:
       | I really don't understand why people are surprised. If you don't
       | have access to the file itself, you don't own it. "Buying" a
       | movie on a platform or paying for a subscription service are both
       | just paying for a revokable license to access a movie. You do not
       | own it and access can be revoked at any time according to
       | whatever platform's ToS.
       | 
       | If you want to own an actual copy of a TV show or movie, buy the
       | physical disc. Optionally you can rip it and store/stream it
       | digitally. Nobody can take that away from you no matter what
       | anyone decides. It's yours forever. If you can't download the
       | file, you don't own it.
       | 
       | Also, most of us are comparatively rich, adult, first worlders.
       | If you like something and want to support it, pay for it! If you
       | literally can't get some obscure media, or if the company is no
       | longer selling it, that's different. But piracy of things you
       | like and want more of is not only unethical, it's shortsighted
       | and immature.
        
         | dave78 wrote:
         | A decent portion of the article was devoted to the physical
         | disc option and how it's increasingly uncommon for that to even
         | be offered as a choice.
        
           | rthomas6 wrote:
           | Like I said, if the company isn't selling the movie/show
           | anymore, well, what choice do you have?
        
             | pmontra wrote:
             | Some people buy (rent?) videos and books, then download a
             | DRM free copy from bittorrent.
        
         | dylan604 wrote:
         | >If you don't have access to the file itself, you don't own it.
         | 
         | This isn't the full story either though. You can be in
         | possession of a file that has a DRM encryption applied. If the
         | service revokes you keys, that encrypted file in your
         | possession is worthless. So, do you really own that file?
        
           | watt wrote:
           | The "file" OP refers to is the encryption key. And, I will
           | reiterate, if you don't have "the file" you don't have shit.
        
           | revolvingocelot wrote:
           | Or the converse! Think of the way GOG sells DRM-free
           | installers -- GOG sells you a license, sure, just like
           | everyone else, but they _give_ you a DRM-free installer,
           | which is bit-perfect to the version of that installer shared
           | on the Pirate Bay 's eternal decentralized tracker.
           | 
           | Can I pirate that installer? When I'm caught, which file is
           | the pirated version, and which is the legitimate one I got
           | from GOG's servers? If I wave around my emailed receipt, is
           | that (moral) license enough?
        
             | crawsome wrote:
        
       | unity1001 wrote:
       | It feels like this is a problem that requires wearing a very
       | specific hat to solve. A stylish, black one. With white
       | insignia...
        
       | dochtman wrote:
       | Happily, so far the estuary for buccaneers has proven to be much
       | more robust.
        
       | ProjectArcturis wrote:
       | I'd still like to watch the old episodes of HBO's Real Sex. As
       | far as I know, that was never available on their streaming
       | platforms. I guess they were going for "Prestige TV", and Real
       | Sex was too close to late-night smut. Even on torrents, I can
       | only find a few episodes.
        
       | kulshan wrote:
       | Thankfully there are still torrent sites archiving movies, series
       | and shows. Pirates save the day!
        
         | foruhar wrote:
         | Usenet too, old as the hills, continues to archive via
         | NZB/NNTP.
        
       | dougmwne wrote:
       | I think part of the reason this is a big deal is that it breaks
       | HBO's brand. They have always been seen as a prestige channel
       | that had a catalog of original programming you'd never see
       | anywhere else. Westworld appeared to be part of this original
       | programming portfolio and something that would live on as part of
       | what it meant to be subscribed to HBO, like the Sopranos. Having
       | the series disappear is like finding out that Disney is
       | jettisoning Toy Story.
        
       | samtheprogram wrote:
       | This seems like a smart money grab. Keep the hot titles on
       | streaming to keep your subscriber base, and those who really want
       | to watch the fringe shows will probably pay for them, earning HBO
       | more money.
       | 
       | Just recently paid for Angry Boys. It's totally obvious why they
       | would want to remove it from their platform in this culture, and
       | even more so when they are still selling it elsewhere.
       | 
       | I wonder if other titles removed are similarly as politically
       | incorrect, or if it's another reason like not drawing in a huge
       | audience.
        
         | twoodfin wrote:
         | The most likely theory is that HBO (under the former ownership)
         | signed deals on streaming residuals for these shows that make
         | them more expensive to keep available than they're worth.
         | 
         | They expected _Westworld_ , for example, to do _Game of
         | Thrones_ -class numbers and continue to draw subscribers for
         | years as a catalog title. It didn't sustain that level of
         | interest. And the new ownership doesn't seem to believe in the
         | value of catalog titles in the first place: I wouldn't be
         | surprised if _The Wire_ and _The Sopranos_ eventually get moved
         | or sold elsewhere.
        
           | rightbyte wrote:
           | Well I guess they need to do later seasons good in that case.
           | Westworld season 2 was a joke. From a drama in S1 to mindless
           | b-action in S2.
        
             | dbspin wrote:
             | Couldn't agree more. It's the most rapid descent from
             | prestige television to soap opera in television history.
             | Just took some people longer than others to realise it.
        
             | twoodfin wrote:
             | I'd disagree that S2 is where the show went wrong. It holds
             | up quite well on rewatch, with probably 3-4 of the best
             | overall episodes.
             | 
             | Ironically, I think Nolan & Joy made the same kind of
             | mistake Dr. Ford criticizes in the premiere: They forgot
             | why people wanted to watch _Westworld_. Fundamentally, the
             | show was about the park, with all its mystery and detail.
             | They seemed to think it was actually about the ideas around
             | AI, consciousness  & free will they wanted to explore.
             | Those were modestly compelling, and enough to ride the
             | momentum of the first couple seasons to some passable
             | storytelling assisted by some great performances. But not
             | the same show at all & the plummeting audience reflected
             | that.
        
               | rightbyte wrote:
               | Ye I agree with the later. People wanted a Western with
               | cowboys. It also had this "Greec theater thing word" were
               | the audience, the guests, knew the story but the actors,
               | the hosts, didn't.
               | 
               | Concerning the former I guess that is a matter of taste.
               | I watched it with my wife and she was extremely
               | dissatisfied with the change of genre and pace. Lets
               | pretend you know her. You understand why she disliked it
               | right? She loved S1.
        
               | twoodfin wrote:
               | Yeah, I can imagine a version of that show that's
               | basically S1 but stretched out much longer. I can also
               | imagine it being quite enjoyable, there was a lot of
               | story space back and front to explore that they didn't
               | get to before things went to hell in the park. Some of
               | the best parts of S1 were in this mode: "Ooh, Pariah...
               | that's new and different!"
               | 
               | On the other hand, I think it would have required robbing
               | S1 of the coherent, two track, beginning-middle-end story
               | that made it as compelling as any single season of any
               | show.
        
         | hedora wrote:
         | In the short term, you are probably right. In the long term,
         | people will move to the most convenient option. That means the
         | experience has to be better than bit torrent.
        
         | croes wrote:
         | Some shows are permanently canned as a tax write-off.
         | 
         | Final space for instance https://gamerant.com/final-space-
         | warner-bros-discovery-tax-w...
        
       | lowbloodsugar wrote:
       | And this is why I unsubscribed. You can't sell me Westworld, and
       | then, after I've subscribed, take Westworld away so you can
       | license it to some other revenue stream. I'm not paying for some
       | percentage of HBO.
        
       | drumhead wrote:
       | This is why the high seas matter so much. There will always be a
       | record of the shows there somewhere, in some hoarders collection.
        
       | easton wrote:
       | https://archive.vn/cxPbT
        
       | letmeinhere wrote:
       | Apparently some of these series are going to be re-licensed to
       | ad-supported networks. [1]
       | 
       | I don't think this undermines the premise of this article, that
       | the current crop of streaming execs are moving TV backward to a
       | more ephemeral medium. It's gonna be essential for independent
       | archivists to preserve assets that are being discarded.
       | 
       | [1] https://www.polygon.com/23513277/westworld-hbo-where-to-
       | stre...
        
         | twoodfin wrote:
         | The ephemerality seems like a side effect of the underlying
         | "problem": Media consumers want what's new and hot, that's
         | where the audience and money are.
         | 
         | Prestige TV imported the creative standards and financing
         | levels of Hollywood films into dramatic television. Now, just
         | like the movies, it's become hit-driven.
        
       | Schnitz wrote:
       | There's a platform where they won't disappear. (:
        
         | CharlesW wrote:
         | If only that were true. Sometimes it disappears while you're
         | downloading it.
        
         | rthomas6 wrote:
         | Yes, physical media.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-12-18 23:03 UTC)