Stupidity like this only hurts the long-term goal of making printed books something only hobbyists are interested in (like vinyl records), but what's the solution? Data integrity regulation from governments? Or will the markets take care of it?
It worries you that people will read more? That people will read more varied things? That authors will get better compensation? That self-publishing will become a much more viable model for literally millions of authors?
I have literally no idea what you're arguing against, or where you came up with any of your arguments. I did not mention people not reading, nor people not reading varied things, nor compensation, nor self publishing.
So confrontational, geez.
The context of my statement was simply that I enjoy the physical nature of books. I was simply trying to express that if they were gone, or harder to come by than their digital brethren, I would be a little saddened.
Hard-copies endure. Digital, not so much. Checkout Jordan Mechner's recent archaeological expedition to retrieve some source code of his from 25 years ago (Prince of Persia). It was nearly lost, and that is only 25 years!
Atlanta is enjoying an exhibit ("Passages") of a very large collection of very rare Bibles. From fragments of early/original texts (ex.: Dead Sea Scrolls) to definitive works (first-run King James Bible) to remarkable renditions (illuminated works) to unusual associations (mother-of-pearl encrusted cover Bible given by (!) Yassir Arafat) to notable errors (Wicked Bible, named for the single typo "Thou shalt commit adultery"), the soon-ending exhibition is for this thread a testimony of the importance of physical copies.
Per that last example, consider that the "Nooked" War and Peace could be considered a "great typo" someday sought after by collectors - except that, being ephemera, the digital copy will either be lost or copies unverifiable due to ease of replication.
I certainly appreciate the benefits of e-books. At the same time, physical presence carries a lot of meaning beyond just content. Alas for those notable books lost in a sea of bits...
Source code is intentionally kept secret and is different from the widely-distributed version.
The book-equivalent of source code is the collection of discarded drafts and working notes of the author. These, too, are often lost, but that has little to do with whether they are digital or not.
It's expensive to properly store and maintain physical copies of things like books. I understand that archivists have some trepidation replacing a known system of storing physical books with a relatively unfamiliar and untested system of storing digital goods. But the bugs are already being worked out; if you want to make sure something lasts, make it digital and make sure lots of others can get to it.
Isn't this the sort of thing digital signatures are for?
Author can sign the text of the book, and publishers can sign the container. I don't know how future-proof this is (and it obviously isn't going to work for something like War and Peace), but it's something that can be done today.
Comments
Stupidity like this only hurts the long-term goal of making printed books something only hobbyists are interested in (like vinyl records), but what's the solution? Data integrity regulation from governments? Or will the markets take care of it?
It worries me that one day hard copy books will be viewed as a hobbyists endeavor..
It worries you that people will read more? That people will read more varied things? That authors will get better compensation? That self-publishing will become a much more viable model for literally millions of authors?
Man you worry about some weird stuff dude.
I have literally no idea what you're arguing against, or where you came up with any of your arguments. I did not mention people not reading, nor people not reading varied things, nor compensation, nor self publishing.
So confrontational, geez.
The context of my statement was simply that I enjoy the physical nature of books. I was simply trying to express that if they were gone, or harder to come by than their digital brethren, I would be a little saddened.
Perhaps other things worry him and I don't think you should assume they are the ones you mentioned.
Your comment struck me as snarky and unfair and I have downvoted it and upvoted its parent.
Hard-copies endure. Digital, not so much. Checkout Jordan Mechner's recent archaeological expedition to retrieve some source code of his from 25 years ago (Prince of Persia). It was nearly lost, and that is only 25 years!
The digital world is ephemeral.
Atlanta is enjoying an exhibit ("Passages") of a very large collection of very rare Bibles. From fragments of early/original texts (ex.: Dead Sea Scrolls) to definitive works (first-run King James Bible) to remarkable renditions (illuminated works) to unusual associations (mother-of-pearl encrusted cover Bible given by (!) Yassir Arafat) to notable errors (Wicked Bible, named for the single typo "Thou shalt commit adultery"), the soon-ending exhibition is for this thread a testimony of the importance of physical copies.
Per that last example, consider that the "Nooked" War and Peace could be considered a "great typo" someday sought after by collectors - except that, being ephemera, the digital copy will either be lost or copies unverifiable due to ease of replication.
I certainly appreciate the benefits of e-books. At the same time, physical presence carries a lot of meaning beyond just content. Alas for those notable books lost in a sea of bits...
Source code is intentionally kept secret and is different from the widely-distributed version.
The book-equivalent of source code is the collection of discarded drafts and working notes of the author. These, too, are often lost, but that has little to do with whether they are digital or not.
It's expensive to properly store and maintain physical copies of things like books. I understand that archivists have some trepidation replacing a known system of storing physical books with a relatively unfamiliar and untested system of storing digital goods. But the bugs are already being worked out; if you want to make sure something lasts, make it digital and make sure lots of others can get to it.
Isn't this the sort of thing digital signatures are for?
Author can sign the text of the book, and publishers can sign the container. I don't know how future-proof this is (and it obviously isn't going to work for something like War and Peace), but it's something that can be done today.