The reason videos on Dailymotion and on Youtube are often altered in some way, is because showing them without permission from the copyright holder is illegal. There are fleets of lawyers who spend their entire time dinging companies and individuals, forcing withdrawal of videos and music, or shaking them down for cash. Nowadays it’s even worse; computer programs called bots crawl through the internet, searching for whatever shows or music they’ve been told to look for. When one is found, the bot sends a notice to the home office or possibly direct to the offending media service, demanding that the content be stricken, or removed. Hence the term, “copyright strike”. Even the threat of litigation over content, however legitimate the use, is often enough to force its removal. That is also why companies who allow users to post their own media on their site, insist that you must not break copyright, that you must own whatever it is you’re posting. Repeat offenders may lose their accounts and all the material they’ve uploaded to the site.

People are inventive. There are a lot of ways to post information you want, by skirting the law. Video and music may be sped up or slowed down. It may be cut into chunks and uploaded in pieces. It may be blurred, darkened, or de-synced so the words don’t match the actors’ faces. It may be squeezed or stretched vertically or horizontally. It may even be posted with some other language audio or with subtitles permanently included.

You can legally post your opinion about something and show examples of what you’re talking about; that’s fair use. So some people post videos of themselves watching a movie, sometimes without any comments at all. Some have even left their camera on, showing an empty chair, while the movie plays and they go do something else. They’re earning a small amount of money from Youtube every time someone watches their video, so they have incentive to get as much viewer time as possible. Youtube doesn’t want to pay individuals for movie views they could get paid for themselves, so Youtube has started showing movies directly, for a fee. This cuts down on copyright strikes (and litigation) and Youtube keeps the money. Youtube pays copyright holders a small amount per view according to whatever arrangement they have with each media conglomerate, I mean, movie company or record label. Very old movies (more than 10 or 20 years, depending on the movie’s popularity), may be available free. Youtube has a package deal with each media company that owns a library of old movies. The older and less well known the movie is, the more likely it’s available free to us, with advertising or a subscription cost.

The Internet Archive is in a legal gray area. Their stated mission is to save examples of everything mankind has ever produced: art, music, videos, podcasts, radio programs, music found on LPs and cassettes, news broadcasts, documentaries, books. This is all well and good for old materials: the first audio recordings from wax cylinders in Edison’s office, the voices of historical figures now dead, musicians and performances we’ll never see otherwise. Copyright for books has existed longer than for other media; companies argue less about that. The archive limits access to recent materials. It only gives samples of music for which copyright is being enforced. And some items only appeal to a very small audience. I downloaded an album from an obscure defunct music group called The Original Onions. I like their music very much, but will never find a CD of theirs to purchase. Most podcasts and radio programs are not of eternal value except to the people who produced them, and even most of them don’t want to listen again.

The Internet Archive has a more-or-less open submissions policy; anyone can suggest and supply stuff to be uploaded, to be stored for the life of the archive. They get a lot of fluff, as well as nuggets of real value. Yes, Minister was filmed during Margaret Thatcher’s prime ministership and Reagan’s presidency. The show met someone’s criteria for historical value and was given its own space on the archive’s servers, with a webpage to access it. I’m grateful. The BBC who produced it might not care. Amazon and Britbox want the income from selling it to us. Should they get our money at this late date? Who’s to say?