|
Let me be the devil's advocate for a moment (in other words, this commentary does not necessarily represent my true beliefs).
I presume that many libraries have another, hidden agenda. In fact, it could be argued that e-books are a general threat to libraries. Since early ages of mankind, libraries have been the greatest archives of knowledge. In 400 A.D., the library at Alexandria was by far the greatest storehouse of information that the world had ever known. Libraries have been essential to the free flow of ideas and to maintaining, increasing and spreading knowledge.
Today libraries are being slowly replaced by digital content providers and search engine giants. The latter are becoming the second most important repository of knowledge. E-books are digitally stored and don't require the physical space p-books stored in a library would require. What's more, e-books are not unique. They can be easily reproduced and shared among content providers, new and old. In traditional libraries, on the other hand, you find unique collection of books, pamphlets, periodicals, leaflets, posters, campaigning documents, watercolors, artefacts and archival material that cannot be easily duplicated. Before, it was virtually impossible to replace one library with another. In short: the barrier-to-entry has fallen.
Assume for a moment that DRM was not existant (a librarian's wish come true, one would think) and that all written knowledge will eventually be available as e-content. At the end, what's a library's right to exist other than to function as a museum to collect and preserve such artefacts as paper books?
It's true that some of the country's major libraries are supporting Google's digital library project. They have no other choice. Even though they'd be better off without e-content, those libraries reason that as long as they "follow the trend of digitalization" they have a chance to survive, even if it's just for the short run.
|