4 ms·

I'm not against reproduction if care is taken to preserve what can be preserved, as close to the original as possible while giving credit, compensating creators

I'm not against reproduction if care is taken to preserve what can be preserved, as close to the original as possible while giving credit, compensating creators, etc. In your example, I think reproduction/conservation technology was available but the studios couldn't justify spending the time/money it would cost to preserve their entire library. Who would have paid for that? I don't know. Supposedly, half of Van Gogh's entire lifetime output was burned because he was too poor to find a place to store it. At the same time, I'd rather see a bug-eaten Van Gogh with fugitive reds long faded away, than a flat, lifeless high-def copy. I suppose it's a complex subject and each work is unique. Sometimes I'm thrilled when I can find an old page in "Wayback Machine" but what they manage to save is typically broken and low quality.

sroerick 12y ago
I'm having a little trouble understanding your perspective. Copying films is good, letting bugs eat Van Gogh is good, but copying websites is bad? Well, luckily, with digital technology, we can copy things flawlessly with very little cost. Unfortunately, most content creators are still stuck trying to adapt physical distribution models to the information age, which is why we're stuck with DRM. You can't say "The Medium is the Message" and then get angry because you're producing content for a medium that is infinately copyable. We need to move to a model of perceiving data as holographic. Especially with the advent of blockchain technology, we're increasingly moving to a model where every node in a network contains the entire network. Trying to adapt 20th century Disney copyright to that paradigm is stupid.
rakoo 12y ago
> I'd rather see a bug-eaten Van Gogh with fugitive reds long faded away, than a flat, lifeless high-def copy The beauty of perfect copies is that you can create your own faded version if you want, and other people can have their own perfect or artificially aged version too. You can't do it the other way.

sroerick 12y ago

I'm having a little trouble understanding your perspective. Copying films is good, letting bugs eat Van Gogh is good, but copying websites is bad? Well, luckily, with digital technology, we can copy things flawlessly with very little cost. Unfortunately, most content creators are still stuck trying to adapt physical distribution models to the information age, which is why we're stuck with DRM. You can't say "The Medium is the Message" and then get angry because you're producing content for a medium that is infinately copyable. We need to move to a model of perceiving data as holographic. Especially with the advent of blockchain technology, we're increasingly moving to a model where every node in a network contains the entire network. Trying to adapt 20th century Disney copyright to that paradigm is stupid.

rakoo 12y ago

> I'd rather see a bug-eaten Van Gogh with fugitive reds long faded away, than a flat, lifeless high-def copy The beauty of perfect copies is that you can create your own faded version if you want, and other people can have their own perfect or artificially aged version too. You can't do it the other way.