Print

Print


I heard from Greg Lukow on this matter.  He seems satisfied that these are
the same entity and thus ok.

I recall concerns being raised about this issue in a presentation to MLA
about buildings on diferent parts of the Indiana University campus.  Theirs
was a "one building" rule at the time.  I don't know if has been altered
subsequently.

Steve Smolian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Moody" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] long range file storage


>I don't think copyright is involved in transporting files between
>buildings, since both buildings belong to the LC. A team I work with
>actually raised the issue of copyright some time ago, and I think in
>general copyright issues are still being worked out, at least in the area
>of digital rights management. I'm part of an IT team, but if you're really
>interested, I'd be glad to forward this question to someone who can answer
>it better than I and pass along the answer.
>
> Damien J. Moody
> Information Technology Services
> Library of Congress
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 08/09/05 6:36 PM >>>
>
> What is the status of the copyright issues raised by sending the digital
> files from Culpepper to the Madison Building?
>
> Steve Smolian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Damien Moody" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 5:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] long range file storage
>
>
>> Yes, there will be both audio and video. My understanding is that we
>> expect our, as of yet not specifically defined "preservation quality"
>> files could be up to 4 TB max. We're currently planning a disk/tape
>> hybrid
>> where the long-term storage will be done on tape and intermediary
>> "derivative quality" files prepared from hard drive systems. I would just
>> love to see a more efficient system, but we're breaking almost all-new
>> ground here, so perhaps we'll be fortunate enough to develop one over
>> time.
>>
>> Damien J. Moody
>> Information Technology Services
>> Library of Congress
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 08/09/05 5:27 PM >>>
>>
>> Hello, Damien,
>>
>> I'm sure we'll all be interested in hearing the solution for
>> Culpepper when it gets fully designed, implemented, debugged, and
>> running--it's a fascinating project.
>>
>> Many (most?) archives don't grow 8PB per year. University of
>> Toronto's TSpace system is one facility I've discussed using as a
>> possibility for a campus project. This is modeled after work done at
>> MIT and Cambridge, as I understand it. It's a disc/tape hybrid.
>>
>> An hour-long stereo audio CD, as you know, is about 0.6 GB. So, 1TB
>> can hold about 1600 one-hour audio CDs. Your growth sounds like
>> adding 12.8 million CDs to the archive annually. I realize that the
>> LoC archive includes video so that is what really adds up. Are you
>> planning on including high-resolution (4K?) film scans in this system?
>>
>> I do think that many of the people struggling here (i.e. on this
>> list) have archives in the <10TB region (16,000 hours of stereo CD
>> quality recording). I could be wrong
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> At 05:11 PM 8/9/2005, you wrote:
>>>But what would be the optimum system if you had an archive you
>>>expect to grow at, say, 8 petabytes per year? Wouldn't spinning
>>>disks be rather expensive or prohibitive in other ways?
>>>
>>>Damien J. Moody
>>>Information Technology Services
>>>Library of Congress
>>>
>>> >>> [log in to unmask] 08/09/05 4:45 PM >>>
>>>
>>>Hi, Russ,
>>>
>>>I think there are some archives who are not ready to make this step.
>>>
>>>Personally, I've made the step to spinning discs as my sole storage
>>>medium. I have at least three copies of each file, soon to be in two
>>>separate buildings, linked by fiber optic 100 Base FX. The two main
>>>stores are 1TB each and then there is additional storage amounting to
>>>more-or-less another 1TB on individual machines (that hold the third
>>>copy). There is a fair amount of expansion space left in the systems
>>>I have. I could probably go to 3TB each with the architecture I have.
>>>I only retain client files for the short term.
>>>
>>>The cloning software does NOT propagate deletes and, in the instance
>>>of digital images, does not propagate updates to all copies (some
>>>copies are marked "digital negative," essentially).
>>>
>>>Long ago and far away, I made CD and then DVD copies of everything.
>>>It took forever. Now, I check the backup logs a few times a week to
>>>see if there are any abnormal error messages (I always get a few
>>>error messages on email as files change during the compare/copy latency).
>>>
>>>My Brother-In-Law has about 7,000 slides that he would like to
>>>digitize. He's been photographing architecture to illustrate his
>>>teaching of history. I just looked at the scans that he had done at
>>>the college, and they ranged from 837x564 to a few at 1500x2242. I
>>>suggested that these were probably not the best scans for
>>>preservation. He wants CDs. He's not ready yet to move to spinning
>>>disks. I suggested we could put the PSD files on disks and we could
>>>burn high-rez JPEGs into gold CDs. I'd hate to put the raw PSDs on
>>>CD! (I am anticipating PSDs > 20MB/image in the final archival
>>>scanning and JPEGs~3MB per image).
>>>
>>>Two mindsets/paradigms need to be brought into focus:
>>>(1) It's all data
>>>(2) Use data center management techniques to make sure you don't lose it
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Richard
>>>
>>>At 04:07 PM 8/9/2005, you wrote:
>>> >I've been following the discussion on long-range file storage, and it
>>> >seems
>>> >that with all the complexities of burning and storing optical media as
>>> >well
>>> >as concerns about being able to play the media decades down the line
>>> >(storing original player devices, etc.) it may not be impractical to
>>> >consider the alternative of redundant arrays of independent hard disks
>>> >and
>>> >tape backups - along the business model of data storage?
>>> >
>>> >Yes, a plastic CD or DVD in itself is cheap (even at $1), but might it
>>> >not
>>> >be more efficient, even more economical to set up systems like this?
>>> >Once
>>> >the system is engineered and set up, the technicians just create and
>>> >save
>>> >the audio files, concerning themselves only with file management,
>>> >naming,
>>> >metadata, and so on. Any thoughts on this?
>>> >
>>> >Russ Hamm
>>> >Ed Tech Specialist
>>> >National School District
>>> >San Diego, CA
>>> >http://nsd.us
>>> >
>>>
>>>Richard L. Hess                           email: [log in to unmask]
>>>Vignettes
>>>Media                           web:   http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
>>>Aurora, Ontario, Canada             (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
>>>Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>>
>> Richard L. Hess                           email: [log in to unmask]
>> Vignettes
>> Media                           web:   http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada             (905) 713 6733     1-877-TAPE-FIX
>> Detailed contact information: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 8/9/2005
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.4/66 - Release Date: 8/9/2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 8/9/2005