208
PBS broadcaster loses access to 50TB of data after cloud storage vendor goes defunct (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 59 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I keep saying, if this stuff is publically owned works made by the corporation for public broadcasting, put up some official torrents and let the public archive it for free. Mr. Rogers would surely approve of sharing for the common good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago

    Just because they are called "public" it doesn't mean they're owned by the public. It's a non profit created to produce media for public consumption, but they still have bills to pay, employees, etc.

    If they have content for streaming or DVD sales or (probably more likely) licensing to other PBS stations, they need to get income from it to maximize their ability to continue to produce the free broadcasts they were created for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    None of it is solely funded by CPB. This is Nine PBS not PBS. 50TB is very low for broadcast footage so it’s likely a small handful of local shows, and a partial archive at that. For context, a 2000s consumer camcorder tape was 17GB per hour.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Woah that is some wild context. So wait does that mean it'd take 17GB to digitally store an hour's worth of that footage..."faithfully"?

    Not trying to paint you into some "gotcha!" corner or anything weird, ya just made me curious.

    I also just find weird and tortured units of measure fun, so "magnetic tape, ya know, the 17GB/hr kind" really tickles me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    If their funding was 100% paid for by taxes, sure. But only a small fraction is actually paid for with public funds. They have to earn the rest to stay afloat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    There's that, and also part that's donations by viewers and sponsors. While they need funding to maintain operational costs I don't think they have the typical pressure of expecting a return on investment to deal with, so volunteer supported archiving, hosting via things like peertube or youtube without needing to show ads, there's room for some novel operations that other content producers don't have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent