It also takes a relatively huge effort to preserve digital information.
No really, don't shake your head! File-formats change, storage degrades over time or failes spontaneously, etc - you need to recopy, reconvert, reindex, rearchive, etc etc etc oll that data on a regular basis. This is not a trivial task!
Of course IMO it is much easier to do this with a digital archive then with a "normal" one. But nevertheless - if you e.g. put a book and a hard drive into a hole and seal them, and 200 years later get them out - I believe, that you will have a better chance of reading the book than of reading the hard drive. Even if you would have a handbook or technical reference how to access the hard drive.
Just imagine the following to happen: World War III kills 9/10 of all humans, destroying all technology and civilisation.
Two thousand years later archaeologists of the new civilisations find that cellar. Now .. how should they know how to access a hard drive? The book can just be opened and read (even if you dont know the language or alphabet) - for the hard drive you need to reverse engineer the interface, the drivers, the formats, etc etc
The book is safer. And thats way governments still hold information on microfilm (or similar) and deposit them deeply buried in mines.
Though - you cannot abstain from the books - but ntl the e-books have their value. E.g. they can be access by a number of people at once, they can be annotated without the risk of getting your head screw off by an orang-utan (ook!), they can even be read withuot getting destroyed (touching a page can damage it), etc
Thus you need both.
And even apart from that he has a number of points. But not points against digitalization - but points stating, that the libraries should really cooperate (and it shouldn't be a single company digitizing the information, but better a cooperation of librarys and universities world-wide with archives spread world-wide...).
A real problem is the amount of data. Data without indices, without cross-references, etc is meaningless. If the libraries help with e.g. indexing, etc the information will get much for valueable. And of course they could hold their own archives - thus making the information independent of the digitizer and reducing the risk of economic failures, etc - even making those archives independent of most wars (it is fairly easy to destroy (willingly or accidentally) 10 or 12 computer centers in one country - but it gets more and more difficult if the same information is stored in hundreds of archives all around the world).
Yeah, I am against Google digitizing the books. But hell, they didn't ask me and Google is simply filling a hole the libraries left.
Oh well, librarys just have to evolve like everybody else. Of course - libraries with "real books" will continue to exist. Nobody wants to throw away all those books
But nevertheless - the future of libraries is digital, and they have to accept this. They cannot just simply wish that nothing changes and everything stays the same ...