|
Each format comes with pluses and minuses. You can probably backup your entire library onto a device the size of a single paper book. You can do that multiple times, and spread these backups out across multiple locations for protection from physical disasters (fires, floods, tornadoes, etc.) You can transfer digital books from place to place in seconds without having to load them up on a truck and drive them there. You do have to maintain digital storage, but you have to maintain physical book storage too. During your digital maintenance, you can convert an ebook from one storage format to a different storage format (EPUB to PDF, etc.) You can't do that with physical books. It is technically possible for one digital book to be read concurrently by an infinite numbers of users. DRM and laws may try to stop this, but when push comes to shove those restrictions are easily circumvented. Physical books don't need DRM or laws because you can't really use one concurrently with other users no matter how hard you try. Pointing out that readers for a specific digital format may become obsolete rendering the book unreadable is just like books written in Latin have become unreadable to the vast majority of the population. A small percentage of the population can read Latin, but then a small percentage of the population could design a device or software to read a dead digital format too.
There are plenty of downsides to digital books. And plenty of downsides to paper books. And there are upsides to each of them as well. Trying to preach that one format is better than the other, as the article did, is a fool's errand.
|