An example of the "human cost" is this: http://www.dolekemp96.org/. Someone has to make sure the site should be shut down, that it's shut down, and, possibly, archived properly. That all costs a lot more then just leaving it there.
Ben On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but there is a cost to track down and remove the electronic > files. Even if you automate it (say a database query of "last bought > greater then 5 years ago"), that automation still requires a human > element to program and the results need to be verified. It's probably > a lot more cost effective to just leave it be then to track down the > ebooks then to track them down and then verify that they should be > removed. Wouldn't want to go deleting "Magician's End" two weeks > after it's published because "Magician Send" is a close enough match > for the automated cleanup algorithm. > > Ben > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Raymond Feist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Apr 29, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Brian Jones (Trancendance) >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Of course, given the growth in storage capacity being brought about by >>> nanotechnologies, graphene and other such materials, and the proportionally >>> reducing amount of data that it will take to store books, it is conceivable >>> that all (future) books will be available, if not for immediate purchase, >>> for retrieval from a library archive. I know that the British Library has a >>> long running digitisation and archiving project, although some past texts >>> and recordings are just too old and fragile to be converted, and it is >>> likely that eventually these will be lost forever. >> >> >> You miss the point, as techno types often do. There's a business model that >> must be considered. Even if it's SUPER cheap, it's still a cost, and if >> you're not making money, dump the cost. >> >> Best, R.E.F. >> ---- >> www.crydee.com >> >> Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by >> stupidity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
