> The first suggestion for a way forward is perhaps the most obvious: it entails rethinking the role of metadata. [...] But metadata is also now becoming central to what users understand as a file, though they might not always think of tags, comments, playlist information and so forth as metadata. For what a file is is now often bound up with the things added to it, not only by the originating user but by others too.

> Consider for example, behaviours reported by [5]. In their study of teenagers and their virtual possessions, participants reported that part of the value of photos posted on Facebook was the metadata associated with them: comments and ‘likes’ were so pertinent that they were sometimes printed out alongside photos and pasted onto bedroom walls as a collection. This materialisation of the digital is indicative of a difficulty associated with the current technological landscape.

> It is not clear how one would digitally export a Facebook photo in order to view it in this way with another computer program or application, and this remains so despite recent innovations in the Facebook service. Yet it is not surprising that users should want to treat these entities in the way they treat a file. If they can upload their photos to Facebook, and given that they do so the photos are file-like objects, why can they not download them again, while retaining the value they have accrued, but still with the benefits of file-like properties? Although it is now easier for users to export their data from Facebook, these exports, once represented simply as ‘a file’ on a hard disk, lose their potency.

Certainly what we don't need is more meta-data attributes on files.

IMO one should either

1. Create a simple file format that bundles the contents of a post. For example a zip file with the media, comments, and likes and such, or

2. Have the post (for example as JSON) and media in separate files and store the references to the other files in the post, sort of like in HTML. Perhaps have the computer system be able to extract such references and let you easily operate on files that "belong together".

They even mentioned databases and relationships earlier, and grouping files together in different ways.

---

> This bundle, this new ‘file’ type, is not merely a complex data type; the important thing from the users’ point of view is that it is a mirror of the social life that the file enables.

I have no idea what they are trying to say here.

If you create a file format like I said that contains all of the data that made up the original post then you can represent that at a later point and you can choose to render it just like facebook would. Surely that's exactly what the users want?

---

> However, this immediately raises complexities. For instance, images posted to Facebook might be copied not only by the person who posted them, but also by others. In these circumstances, should these others be able to copy the metadata, the tags as well as the thing-itself? If so, what of the rights of the owner or, if you prefer, the maker of the initial file? When people copy an originating file, would they be creating a new file or would their new entity be a version of the original one? Is there an order of precedence that we are proposing and ought this to be reflected in the concept of a file that might apply?

Bits don't have color. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Trying to accurately track origin of a post is going to lead to nothing but trouble.

Don't try to build a technical solution for something that is not a technical problem. If someone breaks copyright laws you take them to court and sort it out there.

>It seems to us that there is a distinction that ought to be made between things that are put on the web, which the originator wants to have file-like properties (even as that thing develops a social life once on the web), and those things that are posted that the user does not want to have
file-like properties. The properties we are thinking of have to do with questions like whether ‘ making a copy’ means making a copy, a version of the thing itself, or having and owning (as it were) the originating thing itself and all that has ensued in that thing’s social life.

WHAT??? Just, WHATT??? Are they purposely trying to ruin the internet? It's not up to one person to decide in which manners others copy it or not. Once again, if someone is doing something illegal, take them to court. And if they're not doing something illegal, don't try and restrict what other people are trying to this.

Fuck this. No, really. I'm done reading that paper.