4 ms·

It doesn’t seem fair to compare classics of two media with books that are definitively not in the same league. I definitely want to be able to pick up my copy

It doesn’t seem fair to compare classics of two media with books that are definitively not in the same league. I definitely want to be able to pick up my copy of Pale Fire in 30 years and read it. Similarly with The Idiot. Those physical books will definitely still be functional in three decades. And, if a copy is lost or damaged, it’s easy to get a cheap replacement at a used bookstore, something that isn’t possible with ebooks.

emodendroket 7y ago
Of course, but the point of the comparison is that there is no shortage of forgettable books. I predict it will be quite easy to download a new digital copy of The Idiot in 30 years if you lose access to the one you have today as well.
- catalogia 7y ago
  There is no shortage of forgettable anythings. If that was your point, it's a poor one. If you could predict ahead of time what might be valued in the future, then you could discard the rest. But you cannot do that, since you are not from the future. Scraps of data once thrown away as mundane are now valued in the present by researchers; there is no reason to believe this won't continue to be true into the future. Even your poorly contrived example of mundane data was debunked easily by another commenter. Keep what can reasonably be kept, and let future researchers worry about filtering it. Preemptive filtering will only deprive future researchers of data they'll desire for reasons you cannot presently fathom.
  - emodendroket 7y ago
    I took the claim to be that there was something inherent about books that made them more enduring than other forms of media, which just isn't really true. Anyway, libraries, among others, make these kinds of decisions all the time, because they don't have infinite space for books (hey, here's another reason ebooks might be valuable).

4 ms·

It doesn’t seem fair to compare classics of two media with books that are definitively not in the same league. I definitely want to be able to pick up my copy

by mplanchard 7y ago

emodendroket 7y ago
Of course, but the point of the comparison is that there is no shortage of forgettable books. I predict it will be quite easy to download a new digital copy of The Idiot in 30 years if you lose access to the one you have today as well.
- catalogia 7y ago
  There is no shortage of forgettable anythings. If that was your point, it's a poor one. If you could predict ahead of time what might be valued in the future, then you could discard the rest. But you cannot do that, since you are not from the future. Scraps of data once thrown away as mundane are now valued in the present by researchers; there is no reason to believe this won't continue to be true into the future. Even your poorly contrived example of mundane data was debunked easily by another commenter. Keep what can reasonably be kept, and let future researchers worry about filtering it. Preemptive filtering will only deprive future researchers of data they'll desire for reasons you cannot presently fathom.
  - emodendroket 7y ago
    I took the claim to be that there was something inherent about books that made them more enduring than other forms of media, which just isn't really true. Anyway, libraries, among others, make these kinds of decisions all the time, because they don't have infinite space for books (hey, here's another reason ebooks might be valuable).