View Single Post
Old 06-03-2008, 01:49 PM   #15
Taylor514ce
Actively passive.
Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Taylor514ce ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Taylor514ce's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,042
Karma: 478376
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: US
Device: Sony PRS-505/LC
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwehrung View Post
I think you have brought up a valid issue. However, I do not believe that was mentioned in the article. I believe the faculty was just debating the format of the book, paper versus digital.
They were. I read the article. If Stanford wants a digital library, which operates AS a library, then debate the merits of digital vs. traditional all day long. Scan away. But that's not what they are doing. They are "sending books off to Google to be scanned" (paraphrase). What does Google do with that scanned book?

When the wolf comes knocking on your door, it's appropriate to question his motives. So when Google, the largest intellectual property pirate on the planet, says to a library, "Hey, we've got a great idea!", the FIRST question should be regarding their intentions, NOT the pros and cons of digital reading.
Taylor514ce is offline   Reply With Quote