Excellent points, Matt, but I think there are differences between traditional antiques and "antiques" in our industry. For instance, how many preserved copies of something is enough? Two, three, four? When is enough, enough and the others of its kind can be used as they were intended? Certainly with a one-of-kind Egyption bracelet, there's no question it should be preserved, but for software with a production run in the thousands, isn't it reasonable to say at some point it's "preserved" and the rest are there for usage and PROPER (hands-on) study? (for instance, can I really give a TRUE review of a particularly robust game if I don't in fact have all the fancy inclusions and play it on the real system? In other words, get my hands on it and maybe wrinkle it just a bit?)
If something has already been converted to digital form - the software was turned into a useable ROM image, the packaging and insides were dutifly scanned, etc. - does that then mean we still need an abundance of sealed copies stored in multiple places? If I'm reasonably careful with my collection (and hey, even museums have disasters, natural or otherwise, that destroy things), couldn't I then use it the way it was supposed to be used? It's not like it's really a one of a kind item like that Egyptian bracelette, is it? If the disk goes bad, can't I just re-write the software back to the disk or put it on a new disk? Wouldn't I still have the same physical disk? Also, going back to that Egyptian bracelett or any other museum piece, how many people actually get to handle the thing? Perhaps a few dozen over the span of hundreds of years? Does that really benefit anyone? By keeping extra software sealed or more than one computer stored away, the answer is NO ONE gets to handle it. How is that any more useful than seeing something on the Web in that case?
Yes, it's an old debate, but I don't believe in preservation on the basis of monetary value or for the sole sake of preservation (keeping it intact). I'm not going to keep software I want to open, just because it's worth 50% more sealed. I'm going to open it, experience it and become a better person for it. I don't become a better (or changed) person by having it sit sealed on a shelf inside a fireproof box. And I know there's very little chance of a museum being able to allow people to experience it either. Sure, they can have their one copy, maybe even a backup, but that's it as far as I'm concerned. For the rest, get it out there in the hands of enthusiasts so we can advance the state of knowledge freely and accurately.
Excellent points, Matt, but I think there are differences between traditional antiques and "antiques" in our industry. For instance, how many preserved copies of something is enough? Two, three, four? When is enough, enough and the others of its kind can be used as they were intended? Certainly with a one-of-kind Egyption bracelet, there's no question it should be preserved, but for software with a production run in the thousands, isn't it reasonable to say at some point it's "preserved" and the rest are there for usage and PROPER (hands-on) study? (for instance, can I really give a TRUE review of a particularly robust game if I don't in fact have all the fancy inclusions and play it on the real system? In other words, get my hands on it and maybe wrinkle it just a bit?)
If something has already been converted to digital form - the software was turned into a useable ROM image, the packaging and insides were dutifly scanned, etc. - does that then mean we still need an abundance of sealed copies stored in multiple places? If I'm reasonably careful with my collection (and hey, even museums have disasters, natural or otherwise, that destroy things), couldn't I then use it the way it was supposed to be used? It's not like it's really a one of a kind item like that Egyptian bracelette, is it? If the disk goes bad, can't I just re-write the software back to the disk or put it on a new disk? Wouldn't I still have the same physical disk? Also, going back to that Egyptian bracelett or any other museum piece, how many people actually get to handle the thing? Perhaps a few dozen over the span of hundreds of years? Does that really benefit anyone? By keeping extra software sealed or more than one computer stored away, the answer is NO ONE gets to handle it. How is that any more useful than seeing something on the Web in that case?
Yes, it's an old debate, but I don't believe in preservation on the basis of monetary value or for the sole sake of preservation (keeping it intact). I'm not going to keep software I want to open, just because it's worth 50% more sealed. I'm going to open it, experience it and become a better person for it. I don't become a better (or changed) person by having it sit sealed on a shelf inside a fireproof box. And I know there's very little chance of a museum being able to allow people to experience it either. Sure, they can have their one copy, maybe even a backup, but that's it as far as I'm concerned. For the rest, get it out there in the hands of enthusiasts so we can advance the state of knowledge freely and accurately.
=================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
[ My collection ]
[ http://www.MythCore.com ]
***************************
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.