There’s a story on Gizmodo today about a blind, diabetic guy who is trying to sell his record collection. He values it at $50 million, but even priced at $3 million, he can’t find a buyer. Somehow, this is surprising and upsetting to a lot of people.
The vast difference in appraised and asking price (and failure to sell even at 6% of the appraisal) tells me that the basis of my rant is well-founded, or at least, not entirely wrong. He owns millions of vinyl platters, relatively few of which are available on CD. This is much less a tragedy when one asks, “was there merit to their re-release?” Plenty of awful music came out back then, same as today — we’ve just had longer to forget it. People are constantly dismissing the whole of the new as inferior to the whole of the old, conveniently forgetting things like child labor, crucifixion, and The Doors.
Beyond all that, though, is the whole notion of hanging on to old formats and the “thingness” of things. To sidetrack for a moment: A few of my friends belong to an artist’s collective that specializes in fancy books and unusual/antiquated printing and binding methods. Hanging around in their studios, whippersnappers can learn why we refer to the upper- and lower-case, for example. One day, I was chatting with their president, Mark, and mentioned that I had read Moby Dick on my Palm Pilot 1000 in 1997. And I liked it! I thought it was a really good book, despite its complete lack of paper. This blew Mark’s mind, and some time later, he gave a talk at a fundraiser explaining specifically that they were making books “not for people like” me. Which was fine, because people like me bought electronic organizers and spent weeks seeking out add-on programs (written and distributed by programmers who were bored on weekends), and then took free ebooks and downloaded them to memory cards. Not to save money, but for convenience. Convenience in a perverse, head-scratching, weeks-taking way.
Big corporations (Amazon, Apple) looked at this, wised up, and put together systems (Kindle, iTunes) that took you straight to the good stuff without the slog. So now, the problem is that there are millions of people that see little worth in hanging on to old formats when the new ones are so much more convenient. The iPod’s original slogan should have been “1,000 songs in your pocket at no extra weight.” That was why I went through all that work to get Moby Dick converted; because then I could also carry The Hacker Crackdown and 1984, and still have room left over for Pocket Chess and HMaki, without looking like Giant Backpack Dork.
Getting back to the record collection: the discussion that doesn’t seem to be happening is that the old formats fundamentally limit our freedoms. Artificial limitations are a hallmark of DRM, which we all hate, but even LPs do this — geographically. [It might be more accurately referred to as a natural limitation, and then we get to throw the size and weight of this pile of PVC and cardboard into the complaint. And I'll point out that digital files can't grow mold nearly as well as record sleeves.]
With open digital formats, we can place-shift and format-shift to whatever degree we wish. If I’ve had the foresight to put my digital jukebox online (whether in the cloud or on a NAS), I can be walking around in Guam and stream Boogie Woogie #5 directly to my phone if the mood strikes me. If I am suddenly stricken with idiocy and buy a music player which requires some esoteric format, I can likely re-encode and re-tag my entire collection in a simple batch operation. There isn’t even a need for me to be in the same room as the hard drives in order to do this. It seems to me that given modern society’s disposition toward convenience, the good people fighting Big Media might push this point a little more.
Given all this, appealing to the collection’s size strikes me as akin to those signs you’ll see when driving across the middle of the United States: “Largest Ball of Twine in the US”; then, 300 miles later: “Largest Ball of Twine in the US Wound by One Man”. Yeah, impressive, but who cares?
So it’s a shame that he is unable to unload his life’s work for profit. Or is it? Isn’t that what we used to call a legacy? Where is the pity in his leaving this trove to society, free of charge, if it is a truly wonderful and precious thing? Why does it always have to be about the money? I get a really bad taste in my mouth over the thrust of this video, which seems to focus on the fact that this man has built something over the span of his life that he can’t sell at the end. I’m sure he isn’t the first.