Most active commenters
  • boomboomsubban(7)
  • guestbest(3)

←back to thread

653 points thunderbong | 35 comments | | HN request time: 2.357s | source | bottom
1. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36908788[source]
I'm surprised there aren't more full tapings of 90's television available, as in entire blocks of broadcasting with all the commercials intact. That was how most recording would have happened, and with the start of TV Land the networks should have been able to predict there'd be a market for it in 30 years.
replies(5): >>36908845 #>>36908922 #>>36912076 #>>36914980 #>>36915509 #
2. OfSanguineFire ◴[] No.36908845[source]
Commercials have their own rights (and they often feature third-party music which, in turn, has its own rights). So, even if you have the rights to rebroadcast the actual program, you couldn’t show the original commercials without massive legal hurdles.
replies(2): >>36909201 #>>36931471 #
3. guestbest ◴[] No.36908922[source]
Storage was a problem back then.
replies(1): >>36909338 #
4. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36909201[source]
While I could see an issue with music rights, the commercial rights seem doable. I can't imagine them having a massive objection to "we'll show your commercial again for free."

Trying to set it up now seems nearly impossible, but if they planned for it then it may have been possible.

replies(1): >>36909481 #
5. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36909338[source]
Not really. Hoarders were already mass recording TV from home, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Stokes

Recording ~5 hours of television a night would have been a trivial cost for a network like NBC. Particularly compared to the licensing fees those hours would have had.

replies(5): >>36909796 #>>36910516 #>>36910624 #>>36911425 #>>36912036 #
6. SoftTalker ◴[] No.36909481{3}[source]
Many older commercials, even some from as recenlty as the 90s, would be considered offensive (or worse) by today's standards.
replies(4): >>36910383 #>>36911076 #>>36912086 #>>36912146 #
7. throwanem ◴[] No.36909796{3}[source]
Which 5 hours? The programming transmitted by the network with few to no commercials, or the programming broadcast by hundreds of NBC affiliates, each with its own set of commercials paid for by local advertisers?
replies(1): >>36910351 #
8. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36910351{4}[source]
The storage costs wouldn't be a huge deal to either group.

In general, the affiliate nature would add a wrinkle to the whole thing, but not an insurmountable one. If nothing else, they could have used the broadcast from the affiliates they owned.

replies(2): >>36910488 #>>36920647 #
9. ◴[] No.36910383{4}[source]
10. guestbest ◴[] No.36910488{5}[source]
Where’s the profit motive?
replies(1): >>36910623 #
11. ikekkdcjkfke ◴[] No.36910516{3}[source]
Legend
12. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36910623{6}[source]
Viewers? As my hypothetical has them planning this in the 90's, they would have been aiming for cable licensing fees. TV Land was fairly successful, by 1999 is was outperforming MTV.
replies(1): >>36911325 #
13. standardUser ◴[] No.36910624{3}[source]
Really. Tape media is bulky, expensive, prone to deterioration and the content back then started off low quality, so that deterioration takes a meaningful toll. Sure, a major corporation could afford to archive and maintain all of that material, but what's in it for them? A few thousand hours of repeating commercials and station promos?
replies(1): >>36910919 #
14. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36910919{4}[source]
Those networks were already well aware how lucrative nostalgia was, it seems like someone could see it as a worthwhile investment.
15. rav3ndust ◴[] No.36911076{4}[source]
true. there are collections of videos on youtube called "Commercials from $DECADE That Would Be Offensive Today" that are an amusing watch.
16. guestbest ◴[] No.36911325{7}[source]
That was more of a problem with MTV than the success of nostalgia.
replies(1): >>36911841 #
17. karaterobot ◴[] No.36911425{3}[source]
Presumably it's not just the cost of storage media, but storage of the media too. Climate-controlled warehouses leased in perpetuity, archivists, security, and so on. To be clear, I don't think this is why so much of TV and movies (not to mention radio) is lost, I think that's just lack of foresight or different priorities. My point is, I don't think just buying a few thousand off-the-shelf VHS blanks would have solved the problem.
18. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36911841{8}[source]
TV Land's ratings were roughly equivalent to ESPN's, and it's success led to numerous imitators. Definitely a success.
19. tivert ◴[] No.36912036{3}[source]
I'm working to digitize some old VHS tapes. It's not as easy as it sounds.

You've quite a few barriers to getting that stuff online.

1. Sure, someone taped 6 hours onto a junk tape of TV from some channel to catch one show. But then they likely taped over that, again and again.

2. Tapes are bulky. VHS in general and junk tapes in particular would have been viewed by most people as low value junk that was tempting to disposed of. That's especially true during the decade or two before nostalgia and retro-cool starts making old junk more desirable.

3. Tapes degrade. Even if someone kept them, they might not be readable and/or gum up the VCR you're trying to use to read them.

4. VHS digitization equipment is also old. Apparently newer capture cards aren't very good compared to older ones, and there are specialized devices to fix signal errors (TBCs), allowing capture cards to actually work, that are becoming hard to find and expensive.

5. It takes a lot of time. VCRs play tapes at 1x speed. So if you want to digitize a 6 hour tape, it's going to take at least 6 hours.

replies(1): >>36916164 #
20. WalterBright ◴[] No.36912076[source]
I have a couple home VHS tapes like that. They're mildly interesting.
21. WalterBright ◴[] No.36912086{4}[source]
I suspect people enjoy being offended.
replies(1): >>36915070 #
22. mytailorisrich ◴[] No.36912146{4}[source]
That's because the 90s were "peak freedom". I think partly because people were more "live and let live" and partly because social media did not exist yet, which is IMHO one of the causes of the current atmosphere of permanent outrage.
replies(1): >>36912227 #
23. krapp ◴[] No.36912227{5}[source]
It was "peak freedom" in the sense of "freedom from consequence." The people who were targeted by the casual bigotry and homophobia of the time certainly weren't more "live and let live," they simply didn't have an outlet like social media to express their discontent at a scale that society could notice.
replies(1): >>36912284 #
24. mytailorisrich ◴[] No.36912284{6}[source]
Here we go... QED.
25. LeonardoTolstoy ◴[] No.36914980[source]
It might be apocryphal but I vaguely remember reading an article from the late-90s or early-00s where television executives were shocked that people wanted TV box sets. The logic was ... Why would people want to watch reruns? Whole swaths of soap opera episodes were totally lost, the masters being taped over, occasionally found in a box in some remote TV station.

I have a small personal project of cataloging all the movies that played on television in the 90s. There are tons of television shows that are not only not available on DVD or VHS but also seemingly no one has it. Double goes for cartoons, tons just totally unavailable. It is sad.

replies(2): >>36915761 #>>36918488 #
26. the_third_wave ◴[] No.36915070{5}[source]
They do now that (pretending to) being offended offers a form of social currency. Had René Descartes been alive today he could have used Offendi, ergo sum as his first principle and not been far off the mark.
replies(1): >>36931526 #
27. rkuykendall-com ◴[] No.36915509[source]
There are places on the internet where things like that are collected, but YouTube isn't ideal for it.
28. slyall ◴[] No.36915761[source]
In many cases the original contracts on the shows didn't anticipate all the later viewing options. So to release the shows in a different format you have to get the actors, writers, music, etc all renegotiated.

Hence shows were wiped in the past (since they could never be shown again) and even surviving shows can't be released without a lot of work.

29. smackeyacky ◴[] No.36916164{4}[source]
Find a good quality dvd recorder, sony made some great ones that can be thrifted for $10 or so. A good quality hifi 6 head VHS is about the same money.

Hook those up, record to DVD.

Rip DVD.

No need to fool with terrible capture cards they sucked back in the day and have not improved. The biggest problem I found with VHS is mold growth.

Edit: bonus with dvd recorders is that some have firewire ports so ripping portable video vamera tapes is automatic.

30. awiesenhofer ◴[] No.36918488[source]
> I have a small personal project of cataloging all the movies that played on television in the 90s.

Any plans to publish this list? Would surely make a super interesting git repo for example...

replies(1): >>36920614 #
31. LeonardoTolstoy ◴[] No.36920614{3}[source]
I've been working on it for about a year. At the moment it exists as a git repo (as you say), but for it to be of use you need at the very least the corresponding SqliteDB (~70MB) and to be really fun (and work with the frontend) you need the listing pages themselves (high res and ~50GB), neither of which is in the git repo, I keep them separate.

If you message me privately I'd be happy to share the data. The git repos are:

https://github.com/patsmad/nyt-listings https://github.com/patsmad/nyt-listings-app

I use them for curation at the moment so the READMEs leave ... something to be desired. I hope by the end of August to have a read-only version up and running, although without a wikipedia-like effort I don't see how I would curate it fully so it'll probably always be a little touch and go as to what data is available.

The stats I have from curating are: 369345 individual movie "listing boxes" (I would guess around 98% accuracy, although if I were to field a guess the actual number there should be is probably 400K) of which 321308 are matched to a movie, and 296941 of those are for sure unique. And overall 202203 have channel + time + duration matched up using the VCR listings (which the New York Times conveniently published from around November 20th 1990, and the internet archive very nicely has the program the VCRs used to encode/decode those codes). There are 21530 unique movies at the moment.

If I understand the New York Times correctly, then none of this can be commercialized since I scraped the core data (the pages themselves) from the TimesMachine, so this really is a personal project, which I'm happy to share. I've made a few Letterboxd lists from the corresponding data, for example a series of lists with all of the movies (and play times) for films playing on September 1 in particular e.g. https://letterboxd.com/patsmad/list/television-films-septemb... It is rather consistent, around 100 films a day, for 1990-1999 it was 106, 118, 74, 74, 89, 99, 98, 110, 97, 93. As is obvious I can talk about this for days.

I'm not sure the best way to do private messages, my email is associated with this account, but I have no idea if you can see that. I usually just lurk on HN.

replies(1): >>36923072 #
32. throwanem ◴[] No.36920647{5}[source]
> The storage costs wouldn't be a huge deal to either group.

Broadcast-grade video tape cassettes were expensive even in bulk, and all tape requires climate-controlled archival storage since heat and especially humidity are quickly destructive to the adhesives that hold the magnetic layer to the substrate. (If you'd like more detail here, the term of art for this failure mode is "sticky-shed syndrome". While it's obviously more of a problem now than then, archival needs were understood at the time.)

Depending on format (Betacam SP or U-Matic), an open-ended commitment to preserving all programming would involve adding at minimum 2/3 to 1 cassette per hour of programming - more if you want multiple copies. So your running costs start out sizable and only grow over time, in search of a highly speculative payoff that at best won't be realized for years to decades.

33. awiesenhofer ◴[] No.36923072{4}[source]
Wow, that sounds awesome! Definitely so a "Show HN" when you feel it's right!
34. rchaud ◴[] No.36931471[source]
There are thousands of "commercials from 199X" compilations on Youtube, for pretty much every year from the mid-80s onwards. Some of those have been up for years.
35. rchaud ◴[] No.36931526{6}[source]
I think Descartes would have found the "offended at others being offended" niche a bit crowded today. Might have had to set his sights a bit higher than 'cancel culture'.