|Subject:||Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Why archive.org treats us all better than YouTube, Vimeo, and other A/V hosters|
|Date:||Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:11:28 +0700|
that statement alone is enough to make a purist cringe - it just goes to
show that people who use youtube do not have very much concern for
quality, neither producers nor consumers
I concur; archive.org even lets you automatically identify which of the files in an upload is the original (the data archive.org received) and which files are archive.org-made derivatives. archive.org makes an XML file identifying the original and the derivatives called <itemname>_files.xml.
Consider the item at https://archive.org/download/S
ita_Sings_the_Blues/(Nina Paley's movie "Sita Sings the Blues") for example:
ita_Sings_the_Blues/Sita_Singsis a list of all the files uploaded or generated for this item. I can easily identify the derivative files (the source attribute is set to "derivative") from the files uploaded (source="original") just by reading the markup. I'm not aware of another gratis hosting service that has this feature. _the_Blues_files.xml
ita_Sings_the_Blues/Sita_Singsis the metadata for this item. From this I can learn a great deal about the upload. I'm not aware of another gratis hosting service that has this feature. _the_Blues_meta.xml
ita_Sings_the_Blues/Sita_Singsis a machine-parseable version of the discussion posts for this item. I'm not aware of another gratis hosting service that has this feature. _the_Blues_reviews.xml
Here are some more advantages to archive.org:
archive.org offers BitTorrent downloading for every item. I imagine they offer a webseed for each torrent. This probably doesn't really pay off for archive.org until someone uploads a very popular item, but it's nice of them to do. I'm not aware of another gratis hosting service that has this feature.
03/31/how-archive-org-items-arhas documentation on how archive.org items are structured. Always give people the /download/<itemname> URL and let archive.org redirect the requester to wherever the item is located at that time. Never bookmark or link to the machine-specific URL because that could break. e-structured/
archive.org knows how to serve up parts of items to visitors -- zip archives, for instance, can be looked inside of and data within the zip file served to visitors separately.
archive.org hosts a playable archive of video game ROMs with an emulator.
There's no YouTube equivalent to any of the above. Google apparently isn't interested in making it easy for users to integrate YouTube-hosted data into other endeavors in a way that isn't ultimately controlled by YouTube. YouTube wants you to push their nonfree JS onto your users. That's no way to treat your users. The same can be said for many other hosters that offer similar limitations (A/V-only, JS-required for typical use, censorship-riddled, built to be non-integrative in a freedom-respecting way) such as Vimeo.
archive.org simply treats you and your audience better.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|