Wouldn’t people have offline – or at least redundant – backups of their material? That doesn’t help an artist’s ability to share their work at the moment, but at least the material wouldn’t be completely lost.
I agree that this doesn’t sound like an accident, but what does a struggling company like MySpace have to gain by pissing off its remaining user base?
Do you trust the cloud to hold your only copy of your data? If you have more than 2 neurons to rub together, the answer is NO. Which is why this MySpace event should not be a tragedy for anyone. Everyone should have their own data.
Do you trust the cloud to stay hands off of your data and to prevent other unauthorized users from accessing it? Well, that is a harder question to answer. See the other thread.
Why would MySpace want to make a planned deletion look like an accident? Why not just flat out tell people “we’re going to dump everything from our first twelve years on X date; you have until then to download/backup your content.” As it stands, they look like buffoons who are not to be trusted with valuable content.
What’s the old expression? “Never attribute to malice anything that can be explained by stupidity.”
Odd - a myspace site I have bookmarked that chronicles the 80’s and 90’s music scene at my alma mater is still functioning, and it’s an old site. Photos and music files still there. Sweet! I can continue to relive my glory days.
My guess is that they won’t absolutely vanish outright.
What will probably happen is that if a photo/video/music file has been unaccessed in some length of time, and the owner’s account is similarly abandoned, they’ll probably clear that out eventually.
But if the content is merely old and not frequently accessed, they’ll probably do one of two things- either set a deadline for deletion, and bug you to death to do something about it, or they’ll set up some kind of tiered storage scheme, where the oldest stuff will be kept offline eventually, and a request for it will initiate a restoration process, and notify the requestor once it’s completed and the file is available.
Then there’s the cynic in me that says that they’ll just tweak their search engine to basically cause the old stuff to be unviewed, and then do a combination of the first two things I list above, and not even bother to have any kind of tiered scheme.
The idea that a professional organization, whose main business is based around data storage, would not ALREADY have backups for all their data is frankly unbelievable. And that they’d start a server migration without confirming that their backups are in place and valid is even more unbelievable. I don’t understand this event at all. It’s more than just “the IT guys aren’t that good”. It’s more like “the CEO’s cousin Joe the barber has been doing all the IT because he says he’s good with computers”. This just couldn’t happen at a real company.
Parsing the language used, the article says “will no longer have access to,” not “we deleted.” That makes me wonder if they just changed the list of supported file types to drop an older standard or something similar.