Comment by xoa | Hacker News Reader

Comment by xoa | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Ever try to read a physical book passed down in your family from 100 years ago? Probably worked well.

No, it worked terribly because they hadn't been stored well and were covered in mold (even the ones from only 70 years ago) or otherwise falling apart. I couldn't search them for specific phrases I remembered my grandfather reading me as a child, and I didn't have the physical space of my own to store them all either anyway. Even making a stab at indexing them all was enormously labor intensive. I was the only one in the family interested in even trying. It really sucked.

>Ever try reading an ebook you paid for 10 years ago? Probably a different experience.

Yes, it was excellent, since naturally it was DRM-free or I wouldn't have paid for it. I have digital stuff from the 80s, still perfectly preserved, that I can call up as I wish, when I wish, anywhere I wish anywhere in the world.

I'm 100% onboard with the correct argument that modern copyright and DRM go against the core bargain of IP (societal agreement for public benefit) and could use major reform. But I don't think this piece does a very good job of making that argument, the entire comparison and pretending that books don't require any sort of preservation and so on really distracts from the core issues.

You seem to be comparing opposite extremes: physical books stored carelessly (in a well-heated and ventilated house, mold shouldn't be a problem) with digital books stored very carefully (you were careful about DRM-free formats, etc.; and if you have stuff from the 80s, you doubtlessly have made backups and transferred it from device to device several times. I have some digital stuff of mine from the 80s and 90s, but I've also lost a lot, in spite of being conscious of the importance of backups).

On average I think what the post says stands. Assuming some minimal, but not very careful upkeep, physical books easily last for 100 years, digital material for much less.

By the way, an anecdote: some time ago, I found a bookshelf in an old house of a branch of my family, which contained books dating more than 100 years back (some were from the 19th century). The house had been abandoned for many years, so the books had been exposed to the elements. Most of the books were softcover, and they crumbled on touch, some of them almost literally crumbled to dust. But the few hardcover ones endured, with moisture stains on the cover but I still have them and they are perfectly readable.

Before that, I usually preferred to buy softcover books because they are lighter, more comfortable to read, cheaper and take less space. Since that day, if I really like a book (or think I'm going to like it, due to author, etc.) I always try to get it in hardcover.

I learned this from a bibliophile minister many years ago: Any book worth reading is worth keeping. Any book worth keeping is worth having in hardback, if at all possible. Buy hardbacks (used if possible) and keep them. Bookcases aren't really that expensive. (Toss the occasional purchases not worth keeping, and don't worry about them.)

Oh, and do whatever it takes to keep mold out of your library. Moldy books that you decide to keep, not replace, belong only in sealed plastic boxes treated with borax, sodium carbonate, and/or chlorine dioxide, and preferably stored outside the house!)

Building a library is like planting trees - you don't do it so much for yourself as you do for those who will come after you. I have a digital library, too, but I don't expect it to be usable at all in a century...

> It really sucked.

Huh, I have a number of books that have been in my family for a long time, reading them is awesome. I never got to meet my grandfather, so reading the same copy of Huck Finn he did, or referencing the same dictionary he used is about as close as I can come.

That said my dad's collection of fiction ebooks will carry a lot of the same value, if only because there is _so much_ fiction out there.

It's not hard to store books correctly, though. My father collected around 30,000 books during his lifetime. (He was a professor at a higher education facility for librarians.) Most of them are from 20th Century but many also from 19th Century and a few of them are up to several hundred years old. They're all perfectly readable. The only issue is dust.

It pains me a lot that the collection will eventually have to be sold at large by the meter and his library will disappear because nobody in my family has the space for so many books.

Sounds like it is actually hard to store books correctly.

I couldn't even be bothered to bring my couple of hundred children's books when I moved from my parents house, let alone 30 000.

It's hard to get the storage space if you don't have it, but it's not hard to store them. You put them on shelves in a dry room and they will last hundreds of years. That was my point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com