this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
49 points (98.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43792 readers
960 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thats a good question. If these closed gardens provided a copy to internet archive (to be unlocked in the future, or in the event of bankruptcy) I think I wouldn't have any objections.
There are many monetization models in the world, this one is problematic for the reasons I brought up earlier.
If we take a note from literature publishing, libraries can lend out a copy, and the library of congress gets one (two?) free copies of every book. Maybe the same could be done with digital content.
The pateron model where subscribers get early content a few days, weeks, or month ahead of time is another option.
I don't know the best, or perfect solution, but making ephemeral work that disappears in a few years (the ultimate dark age of bit rot) worries me.
As far as I'm aware, Nebula / Curiosity Stream doesn't have any exclusivity agreements with creators... they're free to post their videos elsewhere, too. Why is it Nebula's responsibility - or even their right - to archive creators' content? Shouldn't the creators be the ones to decide how and where their content is distributed?
For Nebula, it depends.
If the creator made the work on their own dime, then it can be released anywhere.
However, Nebula will give creators money to make content that creators could not self fund. In those cases, these videos could either be Nebula exclusive or Nebula first videos.
I think a major part of the problem is that Internet videos haven't seemed to reach a point where it is viable to purchase them. Libraries were able to exist because they were protected to be able to lend purchased books due to first sale doctrine. We don't have an equivalent to this for Internet videos as the market isn't there.
There seems to be a floor of around a dollar where a digital good will be sold in a marketplace where the good can be used outside of that marketplace. No one is going to sell a digital good for a cent or a fraction of a cent, so there isn't the ability for a library to buy a video for archival purposes.
I don't know how that gets fixed.