Slashdot thread on deciding on a CDr standard for "archive quality", that is, will last at least 50 years in good conditions.

We all know no matter what you store your data on (besides human readable acid free paper), it'll be unreadable in 20 years time simple due to technology upgrades.

An interesting comment someone made in the thread was that if you're only archiving what you're interested in keeping now then history will be lost.

The modern history I'm always interested in is how Melbourne has changed over the years. I'm taking photos of all the new buildings being built. But there are hundreds of buildings I'm not taking photos of. I never got a photo of St. Kilda Kiosk and now that has burnt down. It's at that point when people start wishing they had photos of it. No-one thinks of it before it's too late.

The photos I have seen of Melbourne in the past havn't been kept because they were photos of buildings. They weren't even taken for that reason. They are of disasters. I'm not looking at the fire at the building in Bourke Street from 1917. I'm looking at the buildings in Bourke street, only one of which is still there.

The best way is to copy copy copy copy. You won't have trouble finding copies of Greatful Dead live concerts in the future. But you might have trouble finding copies of our band, or Regurgitator, or any band that isn't international and huge. Just on a fluke someone might record someone on a format that will still be readable in 100 years time. If enough people want to.

But are we copying the right things? In twenty years time maybe no-one will listen to music? Maybe the thought of copying all this old music for the future is just too much effort? Then in another twenty years time we want all that old music again! But it's gone.

My head spins when I try to think so far into the future. Only three years ago we all thought so differently.