California journalist Gil Durán is featured in an excellent Guardian article this week on his new book about the Nerd Reich - documenting the proof and history of the techbros and oligarchs committed to systematically destroying democracy.
Setting aside the very significant legal, financial, and ownership issues of copyright protections for content and the rights of creators. The societally fraught issue of appropriation and sale of one creator's work by another person. And very serious questions of who gets to decide what is preserved. And focussing on the reformatting and physical destruction of books by AI companies.
I am less concerned about the physical destruction of materials than the potential for distortion of content by malign actors - such as ChristoFascist tech bros. And also by custodial institutions under the thumb of an authoritarian regime. Such as the National Archives, in celebration of women's history, blowing up a photograph of the first Womens March but editing out elements of the image which expressed criticism of Donald Trump.
We cannot reasonably expect to preserve a comprehensive archive of all things. Ethical custodial institutions reformat heritage materials as a strategy for preservation and access. They electronically preserve evidence of the original form and content of items. And provide a means to safely and effectively distribute it to a wider audience. In some cases, this furthers the preservation of fundamental and fragile originals which can now receive stabilizing conservation treatment, be stored safely, but rarely served and displayed. In other cases, of relatively insignificant items for which conservation and storage are prohibitively expensive and irreparable deterioration inevitable, it is reasonable to deaccession or destroy the originals.
An interesting study is the trajectory of a collection of bound newspapers. Author Nicholson Baker infamously excoriated custodial institutions for deaccessioning. Bought up a collection from the British Museum. Discovered warehousing it was more complicated than he thought. Donated it to Duke University under an agreement of forever preservation. Where it is now part of the (Carlyle Group billionaire) David Rubenstein Rare Book Collection. Demonstrating, I suggest, how inequitable taxation which favors accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of the many - impacts the ability of public institutions to maintain comprehensive archives of original materials and leaves their preservation to the whims of rich collectors.
Ray Bradbury is coming to life! As does George Orwell! I love books! To me, this is outright murder!
To me, books are living beings who allow you to give free rein to your imagination. Their destruction, a crime.
The destruction of books is not equivalent to murder. Please think that through a bit.
It’s Lucian Truscott that you quoted.
I changed it. Thank you
Your change didn’t go through….
California journalist Gil Durán is featured in an excellent Guardian article this week on his new book about the Nerd Reich - documenting the proof and history of the techbros and oligarchs committed to systematically destroying democracy.
Setting aside the very significant legal, financial, and ownership issues of copyright protections for content and the rights of creators. The societally fraught issue of appropriation and sale of one creator's work by another person. And very serious questions of who gets to decide what is preserved. And focussing on the reformatting and physical destruction of books by AI companies.
I am less concerned about the physical destruction of materials than the potential for distortion of content by malign actors - such as ChristoFascist tech bros. And also by custodial institutions under the thumb of an authoritarian regime. Such as the National Archives, in celebration of women's history, blowing up a photograph of the first Womens March but editing out elements of the image which expressed criticism of Donald Trump.
We cannot reasonably expect to preserve a comprehensive archive of all things. Ethical custodial institutions reformat heritage materials as a strategy for preservation and access. They electronically preserve evidence of the original form and content of items. And provide a means to safely and effectively distribute it to a wider audience. In some cases, this furthers the preservation of fundamental and fragile originals which can now receive stabilizing conservation treatment, be stored safely, but rarely served and displayed. In other cases, of relatively insignificant items for which conservation and storage are prohibitively expensive and irreparable deterioration inevitable, it is reasonable to deaccession or destroy the originals.
An interesting study is the trajectory of a collection of bound newspapers. Author Nicholson Baker infamously excoriated custodial institutions for deaccessioning. Bought up a collection from the British Museum. Discovered warehousing it was more complicated than he thought. Donated it to Duke University under an agreement of forever preservation. Where it is now part of the (Carlyle Group billionaire) David Rubenstein Rare Book Collection. Demonstrating, I suggest, how inequitable taxation which favors accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of the many - impacts the ability of public institutions to maintain comprehensive archives of original materials and leaves their preservation to the whims of rich collectors.
How very like 1984!