Public domain films (5)

1 Name: Couch Potato : 2013-02-06 16:04 ID:NaXrlplt

Let's share movies that are in the public domain, or otherwise freely and legally available online.

2 Name: ④ⓒⓣ!3lWjo8kf8k : 2013-04-13 21:32 ID:Heaven

I don't think this is public domain, buy it's listed has public domain.

[b]Horror Express (1972)[/b]

3 Name: Couch Potato : 2014-05-29 23:47 ID:t+TSwRHF

Go to Great site.

4 Name: Couch Potato : 2014-05-30 05:39 ID:rwfxIVXQ

Tokyo Story

5 Name: Couch Potato : 2022-01-18 15:10 ID:EuCNX/Q6
by Edgar G. Ulmer
Publication date 1944
Usage Public DomainCreative Commons Licensepublicdomain
Topics 1940s, murder, horror, John Carradine
Publisher PRC Pictures, Inc.
Young female models are being strangled inexplicably. Will law enforcement be able to stop the crime wave before more women become victims?"

I found this link as part of my research into a recent change to the website:

Flag this item for
Graphic Violence
Graphic Sexual Content

Flag this item for
Graphic Violence
Explicit Sexual Content
Hate Speech


I find this update to be unsettling at best, and pretty bad at worst. The only result of these options is: jannies censoring even more uploads. They are censored by: being made viewable only if you log in; being made stream-only; being removed (not as likely, I guess); and a few other ways.

I find the ideas of "Hate Speech" and "Misinformation/Disinformation" to be questionable. Firstly, what is called hate speech usually is not hate spech. And if it is in fact hateful speech, then so what? I don't think it is a great idea to be a hateful person, but what is more important is the ability for people to know what other people are really thinking. The Internet enables us to do this authentic thing, to a degree. The effects (such as the chilling effect) of ostracizing hateful or allegedly hateful people and ideas is worse than any supposed benefit of removing those things.

"Misinformation" is another dubious idea. Sometime it simply means information which is not in line with some group's biased or agenda-driven views. "Misinformation" sometimes just means "ideas which left-wingers dislike"; this is some newspeak nonsense. Misinformation goes both ways; there is left-wing misinformation, and there is right-wing misinformation. However, social media companies focus exclusively on removing right-wing-related misinformation.

Perhaps, and I think this is far less likely, this change to the website will result in less censorship. I think previously just censored items based on certain keywords in the metadata. That method can create many false positives. Maybe ("Internet Archive") will decensor items, pending flagging by actual humans.

Overall, I don't like the motivation of being antagonistic towards information. Some people even feel self-righteous or proud of their views and work which denigrates information. As a personal example I remember being disgusted by people uploading and praising the uploading of clearly copyrighted movies to the Internet Archive (IA). The films which were uploaded were somewhat recent or quite recent releases. The reason I felt disgust was: that these uploads were a waste of time (they would probably be removed), this sort of behaviour might result in dreaded content ID crap, and those video files are currently readily available via BitTorrent and if not are saved to many people's hard drives. Also those video files are ubiquitous due to being on many DVDs and Blu-rays throughout the world. So, publicly sharing certain movies via IA is dumb and a waste of time. However, I don't think archivists or myself should get too worked up about it. Feelings of disgust in reaction to the sharing of copyrighted content is caused by corporate caterwauling and people listening to those who stand to benefit from copyright law complaining about it. Try to be objective and see reactions to the sharing of copyrighted content in cultural contexts.

vc: spoy

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...
Verification: Refresh captcha (Wait 60 seconds)