"Digital Books wear out faster than Physical Books" (Internet Archive)

[Tex2002ans]

Thought MobileRead(ers) would like this article posted on the Internet Archive Blog, so I'm reposting below.

- - - - -

Digital Books wear out faster than Physical Books
Posted on November 15, 2022 by Brewster Kahle

Ever try to read a physical book passed down in your family from 100 years ago? Probably worked well. Ever try reading an ebook you paid for 10 years ago? Probably a different experience. From the leasing business model of mega publishers to physical device evolution to format obsolescence, digital books are fragile and threatened.

For those of us tending libraries of digitized and born-digital books, we know that they need constant maintenance—reprocessing, reformatting, re-invigorating or they will not be readable or read. Fortunately this is what libraries do (if they are not sued to stop it). Publishers try to introduce new ideas into the public sphere. Libraries acquire these and keep them alive for generations to come.

And, to serve users with print disabilities, we have to keep up with the ever-improving tools they use.

[Aleron Ives]

I expected this to mostly be about how paper is still the best medium for long-term information storage, but it's actually a lament about format wars. The biggest omission is that it doesn't mention DRM at all, as the biggest reason you wouldn't be able to read an e-book from ten years ago is that you no longer have software permitted to decrypt it. There's no particular need to chase new e-book formats: EPUB2 works just fine if you don't need any of the new features in EPUB3.

I went with Kobo over Kindle out of longevity concerns, myself. I decrypt and back up every e-book I purchase, and since EPUB is an open standard, I expect to be able to read my e-books for the rest of my life, even if I have to replace my e-reader a few times during that period. Without that expectation, I would have stuck with paper.

[haertig]

Each format comes with pluses and minuses. You can probably backup your entire library onto a device the size of a single paper book. You can do that multiple times, and spread these backups out across multiple locations for protection from physical disasters (fires, floods, tornadoes, etc.) You can transfer digital books from place to place in seconds without having to load them up on a truck and drive them there. You do have to maintain digital storage, but you have to maintain physical book storage too. During your digital maintenance, you can convert an ebook from one storage format to a different storage format (EPUB to PDF, etc.) You can't do that with physical books. It is technically possible for one digital book to be read concurrently by an infinite numbers of users. DRM and laws may try to stop this, but when push comes to shove those restrictions are easily circumvented. Physical books don't need DRM or laws because you can't really use one concurrently with other users no matter how hard you try. Pointing out that readers for a specific digital format may become obsolete rendering the book unreadable is just like books written in Latin have become unreadable to the vast majority of the population. A small percentage of the population can read Latin, but then a small percentage of the population could design a device or software to read a dead digital format too.

There are plenty of downsides to digital books. And plenty of downsides to paper books. And there are upsides to each of them as well. Trying to preach that one format is better than the other, as the article did, is a fool's errand.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

There are plenty of downsides to digital books. And plenty of downsides to paper books. And there are upsides to each of them as well. Trying to preach that one format is better than the other, as the article did, is a fool's errand.

Where did it do that?

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by Aleron Ives

I expected this to mostly be about how paper is still the best medium for long-term information storage, but it's actually a lament about format wars.

I was expecting something about bit rot or mechanical drive failures, both of which are why you want multiple backups.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Where did it do that?

In the very first paragraph of the article:

Ever try to read a physical book passed down in your family from 100 years ago? Probably worked well. Ever try reading an ebook you paid for 10 years ago? Probably a different experience. From the leasing business model of mega publishers to physical device evolution to format obsolescence, digital books are fragile and threatened.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Where did it do that?

The whole article did it with the message being paper is better because you can pass your books on to others to read, you don't have to worry about the paper book becoming obsolete, blah, blah blah!

Considering we are always being told that the majority of people don't read books I don't understand what they are worrying about.

[Aleron Ives]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I was expecting something about bit rot or mechanical drive failures, both of which are why you want multiple backups.

That's what I meant. Paper is the best long-term storage medium, because all digital options are highly vulnerable to the passage of time. A paper book can last centuries, but HDDs, SSDs, optical discs, and tape drives all have lifespans measured in years, rather than decades. Of course, the ability to make unlimited identical copies mitigates this flaw if you're proactive about keeping backups.

[DiapDealer]

But all prints are made from digital copies these days. So if the future of the written word is to rely upon the personal paper collections of readers (better long term storage), we're doomed. I'll take my chances with digital. The medium all new, and reprinted books will be created from.

Unless we're just talking personal storage, here. In which case I'll still take digital. I'm not a collector.

[Deskisamess]

A paper book can last centuries

In a readable condition? Have you seen the quality of many current paper books? I have some hard bound books that belonged to my dad. Some are about the same age as I am, and they are in dismal shape, even after being well cared for.

[tomsem]

The point of the article is to justify the existence of Internet Archive, and to point out that it requires ongoing work to maintain.

If we experience some global collapse of civilization (through our own doing or from aliens or gamma ray bursts), to the point where the current data technologies cannot be sustained, then maybe we'll wish we'd written everything down on dumb, archive quality paper or clay tablets, securely stored somewhere, so we can wait for things to settle out enough to rebuild from the hard won intellectual work of our predecessors.

[haertig]

Similarly, the slides I took on our honeymoon are deteriorating. Colors are fading, black is starting to form around the edges of the negative (actually "positive" in the case of slides) even though they are in "archival mounts", dust specs are on them even though they are stored in good boxes. About 20 years ago (?) I bought a slide/negative scanner and digitized them. Those digitized copies are still in the exact same shape they were when the digitization was done. And I can retouch and improve the digital copies myself using GIMP or Photoshop. I don't personally have the skills to try and repair the original slides. I could hire that out, probably at significant expense, but I'll bet the results would be inferior to what I can do myself in GIMP. Besides, I don't even know where my slide projector is. Chances are it would need a new bulb (probably unavailable). And additional carousels to hold the slides. I wonder where in the heck my roll down slide screen is? Mice have probably eaten it by now.

Paper books are not as fragile as as photographic negatives (or slides). However, paper books do deteriorate. And once they do deteriorate, you can't bring them back to pristine condition. About the best you can do is handle them gently so they don't continue deteriorating as fast. You will never stop further deterioration though. Only slow it, if you are lucky.

If I really wanted to plan for something to last forever, I'd want it digitized, not in it's original paper form. Paper would be better (in the short term) if the big EMP hits us and we are blasted back to the stone ages with no electricity or electronic devices for the rest of eternity. Paper books would make it through that initial event. But they would still deteriorate and disappear eventually. I end up living in the stone ages, I think I might have other priorities. Like "not dying" before I could even finish reading my first book.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by tomsem

The point of the article is to justify the existence of Internet Archive, and to point out that it requires ongoing work to maintain.

IA lost quite a bit of data around 10+ years ago because of undetected data corruption (in RAID systems). That served as a wakeup call for them.

If we experience some global collapse of civilization (through our own doing or from aliens or gamma ray bursts), to the point where the current data technologies cannot be sustained, then maybe we'll wish we'd written everything down on dumb, archive quality paper or clay tablets, securely stored somewhere, so we can wait for things to settle out enough to rebuild from the hard won intellectual work of our predecessors.

Important chunks of that are Imaginary Property that will become lost art.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

IA lost quite a bit of data around 10+ years ago because of undetected data corruption (in RAID systems).

This is why the saying goes: "RAID is not a backup system". RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independent Disks". So if you experience corruption on one disk, then RAID diligently copies that corruption to the other disks in the array, so you end up with "redundant corruption". RAID is (should be!) used to gain better system uptime or speed. It doesn't do diddly squat for backups. RAID systems need to be backed up just the same as non-RAID systems do. I guess IA didn't know that.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by haertig

This is why the saying goes: "RAID is not a backup system". RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Independent Disks". So if you experience corruption on one disk, then RAID diligently copies that corruption to the other disks in the array, so you end up with "redundant corruption". RAID is (should be!) used to gain better system uptime or speed. It doesn't do diddly squat for backups. RAID systems need to be backed up just the same as non-RAID systems do. I guess IA didn't know that.

I don't know the details of IA operations then or now, but point out that if udetected long enough the corruption would be copied to the full set of full backups.