They can. And if at any point it becomes untenable, you can just archive whatever you host, shut down your instance, and put the videos up for download somewhere.
If a company is going bankrupt as a result of hosting a video service, they’re not going to be able to afford to archive and make it available for download either.
Companies or creators can run their own instance can’t they?
AFAIK, it’s still not had the code released, so at the moment there’s just the one site and you can’t host your own.
They can. And if at any point it becomes untenable, you can just archive whatever you host, shut down your instance, and put the videos up for download somewhere.
If a company is going bankrupt as a result of hosting a video service, they’re not going to be able to afford to archive and make it available for download either.
Archive storage is relatively cheap. It’s the bandwidth and compute required to serve video that is expensive
deleted by creator
Could you explain that idea in more detail? I’m not really sure I understand how that would work in practice.
deleted by creator
Gotcha.
The idea of a large public instance rubs me the wrong way, since it leads to behavior like that.