Slashdot Mirror
Library Of Congress Will Not Digitize Books
ATKeiper writes "Science fiction writers, like Neal Stephenson in his classic Snow Crash, have written about a future where all the Library of Congress's works are available online. In an underreported lecture late last week, the Librarian of Congress said the Library will not put its books online. But his argument for not putting books online - even books with expired copyrights - is that there is something 'mindless,' 'isolating,' 'lonely' and 'arrogant' about reading online."
This is foolish and reactionary. The only arrogant one here is the Librarian of Congress who feels it is his place to dictate how we should enjoy reading. It not like sitting with your nose buried in a dead tree version is any less lonely and isolated than the web. I think he's just afraid of the Library losing funding once people no longer need to trek all the way to there to get their books they need for research. He's either cluelessly arrogant or irresponsibly fighting to preserve his job at our expense.
When I first saw the abstract to this article, I thought "Well, isolated, lonely, arrogant, that pretty much sums up government bureaucrat in my book". Which I'm sure occurred to everyone.
I am also a government employee with a political background, and this comment needs some clarification before people take it too seriously.
1. The LoC, IMHO, will eventually have to digitize everything. In addition to its regular stacks, of course. If for no other reason than that House and Senate staffs, and CRS (Congressional Research Service) already do much of their research online. I have a feeling that it will languish in the house and senate intranets for a few years, but the LoC serves Congress, and must ultimately answer to members and/or their staffs, who are already using the Web for research-- or be rendered irrelevent. Their budget depends, therefore, on modernizing-- not waiting.
2. This is the opinion of one guy. Ultimately, he must answer to regulatory and institutional pressures. Like many of his ilk, he has a distaste for the unsecure, uncontrolled, wildly growing Internet, and prefers the current state. He would also, I think, appreciate the elegant beauty of the French Visual Telegraph of the turn of the century.
When Newt Gingrich was first elected Speaker of the House, one of the first things he did was put the plaintext of all bills and proceedings of the House on the World Wide Web, the Thomas System (part, BTW of the LOC!). That was before most people had heard of the Web! The Senate isn't going nearly as fast, but while Congress could change parties again, or someone could find a way to slow things down, all it takes is one person with a clue and some pull to permanently modernize the system.
There isn't really much else to say, now that I think about it, other than that it is one man's opinion and that the congressional staffers are going to make that opinion obsolete one way or another.
Priorities
1. THE FIRST PRIORITY of the Library of Congress is to make knowledge and creativity available to the United States Congress.
2. THE SECOND PRIORITY of the Library of Congress is to acquire, organize, preserve, secure and sustain [knowledge] for the present and future use of the Congress and the nation.
3. THE THIRD PRIORITY of the Library of Congress is to make its collections maximally accessible to (in order of priority)
A. the Congress;
B. the U. S. government more broadly;
C. the public.
He appears to have forgotten the third priority entirely. Digitizing the contents would improve accessibility to all three of the above groups, particularly the third, without compromising either of the first two priorities.
I've seen arrogance in my lifetime. But this guy just about takes the cake. Let's see...
... is an implicit belief [that books] are not going to be replaced, and should not be replaced."
... that you are going to get everything you want electronically."
... is the absolute platform of essentiality for our democracy." Furthermore, in public libraries "there is an inherent adversity to censorship."
"So far, the Internet seems to be largely amplifying the worst features of television's preoccupation with sex and violence, semi-literate chatter, shortened attention spans, and near-total subservience to commercial marketing," said Billington.
First, the Internet is not television. Must as reactionaries and luddites would love to believe it, it's simply not true. Also, even if this is true, it's nothing more than a problem. What do you do with a problem? You fix it. The only way to counter "bad" stuff is with "good" stuff, and if all the stuff he's talked about is bad, then what could be better than to ass whole libraries to the Net?
"We have so much special format material that nobody has seen that it is more important to get those out."
Point for Billington's side. If you're going to get your stuff, better to start with the rarer materials. But that doesn't mean to ignore the more common ones.
"Secondly, behind this
Agreed. But online access to books certainly does not replace books. All it does is make the book's contents more widely available.
"There is a difference between turning pages and scrolling down," he said. "There is something about a book that should inspire a certain presumption of reverence."
Interesting idea. But a book itself should not be revered. It is the ideas therein that are worthy of reverence. Books have become an important symbol for this reverence, yes. But symbols come and go. Before books ever existed, literature was still revered; I'm willing to bet similar arguments to Billington's were raised when someone first had the idea to print Homer's Iliad. But certainly the literature is still revered, even when its physical form changes.
"We should be very hesitant
"You don't want to be one of those mindless futurists," said Billington, "who sit in front of a lonely screen."
As opposed to... what? Read on...
"It is isolating. It is a lonely thing." In contrast, "libraries are places, a community thing."
Oh, really? I don't see particularly much community-oriented activity taking place at most libraries. I don't see that as the purpose of a library at all. To me, a library is an almost sacred place, a "temple of knowledge" if you will. I've been to many libraries over the course of my life, and I've never felt any less lonely than when reading in front of a computer screen.
"It is dangerous to promote the illusion that you can get anything you want by sitting in front of a computer screen." He described this as "arrogance" and "hubris". He added that while electronic books may succeed commercially, they are "seductive."
I see a more than a little elitism here. Enough that I could well call that statement "arrogance" and "hubris."
He also stated that the Reformation was largely fought with the printing press, and that "media revolutions provoke intense debate."
True. And the Internet is to our age what the printing press was to theirs. A new medium, used to spread knowledge more than ever before. But there's an interesting problem here. The Reformation was a fight against a corrupt religion. Clearly, we are embroiled in a fight that has many interesting parallels to the Reformation. But just what is it that we fight against? I'm not certain. But I think I can guess, and it frightens people like Billington.
However, he elaborated that "there should be no question that the tradition of free public libraries
Again, point for Billington's side. Two, actually. The tradition of free public libraries is necessary for a democracy, yes. But how would that be diminished by digitization? In addition to the simple fact that a library can easily adapt to change, there's the fact that not everything that has ever been printed will eventually be online. Consider, for example, the decades of old newspapers now on microfiche. I'd call the chances of these ever being digitized slim to none. There's also a need to keep hard copies of things, both for research purposes and archives; libraries fit this bill well (indeed, this is precisely what they have been doing as long as they have been in existence).
And yes, in public libraries there does seem to be an adversity to censorship. Look all around you at the filtering-software battles carried out by the Reactionary Religious Right, The Lunatic Liberal Left, and Positively Pottering Parents. You'll be very hard-pressed to find a library that actually wants to use filtering software; more often than not they're fighting against the measures which would force them to use censorware.
He said that at the Library of Congress, the focus is to provide "an example of the good." In contrast, if the government gets into "defining the bad, you get onto the slippery slope of defining the bad."
Um... what the hell was that? I think he meant to say that if the government gets into defining the good, it gets onto the slippery slope of defining the bad. However, providing an example of the good is defining the good to some degree (it's a damn weak definition, but it is one). And because good and bad can only be defined in terms of each other, once you define the good you do define the bad.
I do find it interesting, though, that Billington never mentioned copyright in this article. Very strange.
And now, for my own views on the subject (sorry this post is taking so long). First, people here are stating that digitizing books will create unequal access to these works. I disagree; digitization will create more equal access to the Library of Congress' collection. Consider: I come from Virginia. I can go to the Library of Congress and look at the works there, more or less whenever I want (unless, of course, the Library is closed). So can anyone else in the area. Equal access, at least in one region.
But I'm currently at college in Rochester. I cannot go to the Library, and therefore I am cut off from accessing its collection. For no better reason than that I live in a different region. Were the Library's works online, I could at least access the contents of the collection.
No, the digitization of the Library's works won't create equal access. But we're already faced with unequal access. Digitization is a step in the right direction, because physical location will no longer be a barrier to accessing the content (you still can't access the physical works if you can't get to the Library, of course, but access to the content is better than no access at all).
Also, the idea that online access will ever totally replace books is simply absurd. Tell you what, here's a challenge. Go to Project Gutenberg. Pick up their copy of Les Miserables, and without printing it read it all in one pull (stopping only to eat, sleep, and such). I can pretty much guarantee that even if you do succeed, you'll be needing a case of Excedrin and a new pair of eyeballs. You can't simply curl up with a good, long Website the way you can with a book. And for that reason alone, books are here to stay, to say nothing of the other advantages books have over online content.
The two media can coexist. The Net itself cannot replace print media completely. It's not a true replacement for most of the media out there. The reason for this is that the Internet is a distribution medium, like television and radio. It is not a storage medium, like books or CD's, and it's not a very good delivery medium (like movies and books). So books aren't going anywhere; the Librarian of Congress' job is in no danger. But we all have to get rid of the arrogance pervading both the old and new media if we're going to make any progress.
I bet blind people would be happy to have those books accessible online as well. Then again, the blind have always been mindless, lonely, and arrogant.
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
However, as someone who has always lusted after the vast intellectual ocean of the Library of Congress, I've been following his work, not closely, but at least enough to instantly recognize his name...
Anyway, this particular "National Librarian" (a title I find distasteful, and of questionable provenance) is a reform librarian. He's one of the good guys, folks. [Well, at least as far as this office goes -- let's not forget, only twelve men have held the post in 200 years and it didn't open it's doors to the public until almost 1900. It's not a hotbed of change.]
Back in the late 80's I recall being very excited by his intent to increase access to the Library's many collections, and his ideas for updating the Library (including electronic access) I also recall that his publicity has tended to go in cycles -- often beginning with what seemed like a almost Luddite conservative stance (that always disappointed me) and refining and clarifying it in succesive articles and interviews until I had to admit he was pretty sensible (albeit on the conservative end of sensible)
A few times he made some public-pleasing comments that were almost startlingly progressive, but was forced to back down. I have to admit (from my experience in professional organizations) that it is much more painful to have to back off on a promise (due to politics or finance) than it is to be criticized as stodgy for years, and accomplish more than you promised.
Anyway, while I was infuriated by the article linked to this story, I give Billington the benefit of a doubt, based on past experience. He has spent many millions of dollars each year (and raised an equal amount from the private sector) for electronic initiatives, test beds, local library electronic archival/publication projects, and national and intenational 'digital library' initiatives and contests. That may not seem like much, but when you consider how tightly strained the LoC's budget is, it's really pretty good.
"The unleased, unlimited pursuit of truth may be the last frontier and the ultimate proving ground for our American ideal of freedom. In a world of increasing physical restraints and limitations, it is only in the life of the mind and spirit that the horizons of freedom can remain truly infinite. We must rediscover what we should have known all along, that the pursuit of truth is the noblest part of Jefferson's legacy."
- James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress
Here are a few of his writings on the subject of 'digital libraries', while in his current office. They aren't the best ones, but alas, I don't have time to dig up and scan the printed articles I have on file (ironic, eh?):
Some AT&T corporate PR outlining a few of the Library's Digital initiatives
and to be fair, there have been some embarrassing episodes:
__________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
So let me get this straight.
In spite of the fact that making the content of books available online would make the content readable any time, any where, on any screen, by any text-to-speech or braille "reader", promoting literary awareness and diversity on a global scale, reverence of the paper medium is more important?
Don't get me wrong; I like reading books. But I thought a library was place for preserving and disseminating information, to facilitate literary diversity, not a pyro's paradise.
The printing press may have made the public library possible, but it physically cannot make all literary works in existance today available to everyone, everywhere, at anytime.
To presume otherwise is, dare I say it, arrogant.
--The more you know, the less you know.
This is foolish and reactionary. The only arrogant one here is the Librarian of Congress who feels it is his place to dictate how we should enjoy reading. It not like sitting with your nose buried in a dead tree version is any less lonely and isolated than the web. I think he's just afraid of the Library losing funding once people no longer need to trek all the way to there to get their books they need for research. He's either cluelessly arrogant or irresponsibly fighting to preserve his job at our expense.
I just hope for all our sakes that they aren't shirking from digitizing the books even if they aren't going on-line. There are many important books in the library that need to be preserved before they physically decay to the point of uselessness. I hope this person's politics don't get in the way of preserving the past for the future's sake.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
For heavens's sake, people, he's the Librarian of Congress. Write to your Congress-critters and let them know how you feel!
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
By droppping a note to lcweb@loc.gov.
I am:
This is the most short-sighted view I have ever heard, and I am appalled to hear it from our Librarian of Congress.
I have a proper reverance for books. I don't believe most will ever choose to read a book online over a paper incarnation. But that is not the point of putting books online. I believe using this as grounds for not embracing your responsibilities in the information age is simply elitist, arrogant and isolating.
Do you simply wish to keep all of these books for yourself alone? To be shared only with those who can make the journey to your little empire there in Washinton DC? Or would you prefer to open your wonderous assets to every researcher in the world? Every college student writing a paper in their dorm? Every community library with an internet connection? Let every K-12 school in the nation have access to the collected and indexed works of Man? Every school child with a home computer writing a book report? Any person anywhere in the world, US Citizen or not, who can find a way to access the Internet could enjoy the weath of knowledge that you are the curator for. You feel the Internet is just sex, violence and commercialism? Why not make a difference then, by contributing knowledge, wisdom and information?
If this is a matter of money, simpy say so. But don't try to defend this with bull-headed reactionary luddite tripe. It is not your place to tell the world how it should utilize these resources. You are the servant of the Library of Congress, not the master. This week the American people (myself included) graciously and painfully paid every penny of your salary and operating expenses for the next year. Be sure you know who your employer is, and that you serve the needs of your employer, not just your own whims. Perhaps if your goal is not to serve the whole of American people, then the whole of American people should not be asked to fund the Library of Congress any longer.
-- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
Tech Law Journal asked Billington if there is any parallel between hostility to the printing press in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, and hostility to the Internet today. He stated that there is, but that there is also a significant difference. Billinton explained that some of the hostility to the printing press originated because cheap reproduction made books and pamphlets available to more people. Previously, only kings and an elite few had access to libraries. The printing press made the public library possible. Billington stated that in contrast, public libraries are a "political institution" today.
There's one thing wrong with that argument. Since the Library of Congress has such a vast collection, a person who wants to have access to the most information would do best to access the library stacks. But not everyone can afford to go to where the books are - so now, it is not discriminating against those who are not royalty or elites, but against those who simply don't have the funds.
This is an unbelievable arrogance on the part of Mr. Billington, along with all the other foolish remarks he's made. The only thing that he said that made sense is that the priority should be on those items would normally not see the light of day or would be hard to access/find.
While we understand how obsolete his mindset is in today's information world, we must also understand that the Internet is, after all, a Fairly New Thing(tm) and that there are tons of people who do not have access or just doesn't "get it" yet. Instead of disparaging Mr. Billington some more, I think we should put more effort into convincing people like him that the future of books is online.
Does anybody know if we can get Mr. Billington as a Slashdot interview? Or at least maybe send him our comments (or send Jon Katz with the printouts like he did with the Pinkertons). What do you think?
Did anyone look at the actual speech text on the LOC site, or just the article linked from here? Cos the two don't match up!!!
Whilst the article says he used the words 'arrogant' and 'hubris', this must not have been part of the same speech transcribed here on the LOC's site. The words simply don't exist in there. Did anyone bother checking sources? Doesn't look like it - I haven't seen anyone else who bothered. So what use is it opening up the library, if no-one's going to use it? Is everyone really lazy and can't be bothered looking at the real thing, just some predigested version?
This shows up a more insidious problem today - revisionism. A journalist has a good chance of getting away with slipping in some extra details if no-one checks his source. Equally an official can get away with fluffing a speech or blowing his tracks completely if the speech is transcribed for the journalists to use. How many journalists were actually physically at the book club meeting? My money's on not very many.
I actually support what the Librarian's doing. His aim is to ignore the books around at the moment, and start with the primary source materials. Get the primary sources available, and you can get your information first-hand, instead of through some reviewer or some press flack. And I'm quite sure that the process will step forwards, getting closer to present-day material, as time goes on. Anyone who wants it all digitised instantly is just being childish - think of the quantity of archives there are! But start from the start and work forwards, and it'll get there in the end.
Grab.
I would also like to read paper over computer screen but when you think of all the paper that could be saved by putting bookd online i will put up with a little eye strain.
Ok, this is offtopic, but worrying about conserving paper is absurd. It's the wrong argument. You want to save trees? Simple. HEMP. Hemp fields replentish soil, make tons of useful things like rope, paper, fabric, you name it. It's ANTI marijuana. The pollen from hemp plants actually decreases the amount of THC in marijuana when planted in proximity. The only problem with hemp is that politicians are either ignorant, bought by companies like DuPont who don't want hemp to be commercialy viable, or both. When rotated with other crops like wheat and corn, hemp has been shown to improve the yield by 20%. And hemp paper is naturally white, so you don't have to bleach it like with wood pulp paper. So we don't need to conserve paper, we just need to get smart about hemp. Sorry for the off topic rant.
Do the Evolution