Various channels of channels-past run in their entirety in "real time."

Ex. CNN -5, CNN -10, ABC -10, etc.

Not only would you get all your favorite and not-so-favorite shows, you'd get news and political speeches in their original context, you'd get commercials that were instantly retro.

This could be streamed on the nets. Advertisers could be charged again and writers paid royalties, albeit both on a smaller scale.

Imagine turning on the tv tonight after dinner and catching the bloviating on CNN from Jan. 24, 2003. It might just be...surreal.
-- frosto, Jan 25 2008

The Revolution Was Recorded http://tvnews.vande...du/tvn-citations.pl
Vanderbilt TV archive [frosto, Jan 25 2008]

Challenges of Archiving TV [VIDEO] http://ia300115.us...._there/Brewster.mp4
Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle on the obstacles and opportunities in archiving our television heritage. [frosto, Jan 25 2008]

Way ahead of you, [8th of 7] http://i246.photobu...n/cube_in_space.jpg
[frosto, Jan 25 2008]

A lot of work. Maybe more work than putting Pangaea back together. I doubt CNN has archives of the exact order of the broadcast from 1976, for instance. Unless you have it all on tape, [frosto]. Or are willing to track it all down from various sources. In any case, I think there will be major gaps rendering the experience choppy at best. But it's a fun thought.
-- globaltourniquet, Jan 25 2008


Didn't one channel do that for September 11?

And given the way so many channels recycle programs, I'm not at all sure you'd be able to tell the difference.
-- DrCurry, Jan 25 2008


[And given the way so many channels recycle programs, I'm not at all sure you'd be able to tell the difference.]

true. the real benefit is in the news and cultural events, but the recycled shows serve the purpose of putting you in the time and place (setting the mood). plus, this would serve as an incentive for the networks to release copyrights. if they see a chance to make bank off of essentially no new overhead or investment, why not do it?
-- frosto, Jan 25 2008


there's little bravery-induced decision making at the tops of networks (assuming bravery means taking taking huge financial risk for unproven ideas) and that's good (for them). they're businesses after all.

the real bakable aspect of this idea, is the reuse of old ads paid for again (at a much lower cost) by companies to the networks. if a company opted out of the ad space from the actual recording, you could replace it with a different companies ad from the same time period. say within 6 months of the recorded date.

much of the footage is out there, whether kept by archives or networks themselves for at least the last 15-20 years. i think the networks, or at least some of them, would be more willing to release copyrights if they were getting ad revenue. its not really a brave decision, because... what else are they doing with the footage?
-- frosto, Jan 25 2008


Given the way so many channels recycle programs, I'm not at all sure you'd be able to tell the difference.
-- hippo, Jan 25 2008


[DrCurry] to [hippo]: "jinx, you owe me a coke!"
-- frosto, Jan 25 2008


i see your point [boysparks], but its seems to me that the direction the standards have been going is a financially driven one: stick a bunch of cameras in a room, fire your writers and actors, offer some sort prize or award to "real people" that is substantially less then you would pay for the writers/actors/directors etc., and make ze monies.

this idea actually conforms to that trend.
-- frosto, Jan 25 2008


We can do this by moving our Cube away from Earth by the requisite number of light-years, then fiddling with the aerial until we can tune in.

If you miss a program one day, just move one light-day further away and watch it again....
-- 8th of 7, Jan 25 2008



random, halfbakery