Comments on: Mainstream media: killing the past http://www.p2pnet.net/story/21598 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: voxleo http://www.p2pnet.net/story/21598/comment-page-1#comment-973975 voxleo Thu, 14 May 2009 17:50:17 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=21598#comment-973975 This is probably more an attempt at eleminating the competition than at eradicating the past, though the end result is the same. It is another example of the dangers that were the eventual result of the corporate mergers we should have taken some action against over the last decade or two. I remember my heart dropping when I read that Proctor and Gamble had bought Gillette, and thinking "aren't there some laws in place to prevent this?" Buy simply purchasing and dissolving the competition, nothing stands in the way of them being at the front of the SEO lines and though it would be RESPONSIBLE to maintain the archives, it probably isn't in their $ight$ to do so, simply because the decision makers are not concerned with the actual impact that might have if it isn't directly reflected in the profit margin. Surely the journalists themselves have digital if not hard copy of their own work? Is there any reason the content couldn't simply be re-released as long as it credited the original source (i.e. - "as originally published on XYZ before mergers with ABC etc., etc."?) Surely a library that kept archives of magazines that were later bought by another company would not be forced to eradicate their stock simply because the new owners didn't want to keep them? The beauty of the internet is partly that it has a way of perpetuating information, as it is a great deal easier to preserve a few GB of data than storing the equivalent content on a printed medium. While I get that the search engines might not have the info available at the top of the result listing from the original server, they certainly can't simply make it all GO AWAY. Or perhaps I don't fully understand what is at stake... I am missing something more ominous here? This is probably more an attempt at eleminating the competition than at eradicating the past, though the end result is the same. It is another example of the dangers that were the eventual result of the corporate mergers we should have taken some action against over the last decade or two. I remember my heart dropping when I read that Proctor and Gamble had bought Gillette, and thinking “aren’t there some laws in place to prevent this?” Buy simply purchasing and dissolving the competition, nothing stands in the way of them being at the front of the SEO lines and though it would be RESPONSIBLE to maintain the archives, it probably isn’t in their $ight$ to do so, simply because the decision makers are not concerned with the actual impact that might have if it isn’t directly reflected in the profit margin.

Surely the journalists themselves have digital if not hard copy of their own work? Is there any reason the content couldn’t simply be re-released as long as it credited the original source (i.e. – “as originally published on XYZ before mergers with ABC etc., etc.”?) Surely a library that kept archives of magazines that were later bought by another company would not be forced to eradicate their stock simply because the new owners didn’t want to keep them? The beauty of the internet is partly that it has a way of perpetuating information, as it is a great deal easier to preserve a few GB of data than storing the equivalent content on a printed medium.

While I get that the search engines might not have the info available at the top of the result listing from the original server, they certainly can’t simply make it all GO AWAY. Or perhaps I don’t fully understand what is at stake… I am missing something more ominous here?

]]> By: Monkey D. Luffy http://www.p2pnet.net/story/21598/comment-page-1#comment-973851 Monkey D. Luffy Tue, 12 May 2009 16:19:38 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=21598#comment-973851 Well, the guy who's name was replace got hosed, the only think he could possibly do is sue them. Regarding archives being deleted, it seems to me that a little subterfuge is required here, if you think your blog/newspaper is going to be bought out by megacorp, burn a copy on disc, say nothing, and take it home. There may be legalities, but when it comes to corporations destroying information forever sometimes you have to find ways to thwart that. Well, the guy who’s name was replace got hosed, the only think he could possibly do is sue them. Regarding archives being deleted, it seems to me that a little subterfuge is required here, if you think your blog/newspaper is going to be bought out by megacorp, burn a copy on disc, say nothing, and take it home. There may be legalities, but when it comes to corporations destroying information forever sometimes you have to find ways to thwart that.

]]>