Edward Levin,
My point, made I believe in response to your own, is that others
besides libraries now are sufficiently motivated to take up "the
cost of digitizing materials for scholarly use", in fact.
Google's effort is just one example, as others have pointed out:
and Google already has competitors -- the Europeans are working
on several such models, and most libraries have projects under
way or at least dreams of same. How cost-effective or suitable
for scholarly use any of these efforts will be, only time will
tell. But all are publishers, now, which was my point: that
digital "publishing" has many new entrants, even in scholarly
areas -- perhaps conforming to scholarly expectations themselves,
and at least preserving printed collections for scholarly uses.
Agreed as to your "research context" point, then: one fundamental
purpose of the many new library offsite storage facilities is the
preservation of collections for research. MacKenzie's distinction
certainly was correct -- enabling it in libraries is a major
motivation for the establishment of such centers.
What remains to be seen is how much real access mere students and
the general public will be accorded, though, to the rare and
ancient works. Hopefully one will not have to be a "scholar"
already, to handle the books and thus truly appreciate that
"forms affect meanings", or we will run out of scholars.
Jack Kessler, kessler@well.com
ps. Copyright as-currently-constituted, I hope you'll agree, is a
roadblock to this process: if Stephen Joyce, to use the example
cited originally in the thread, restricts digital publication of
the works he controls, he curbs not only their digital
publication but the preservation of their printed versions as
well. We need both: both better preservation, and better access.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Edward Levin wrote:
> I believe you're responding to someone else's point on this
> thread, not mine. My point concerned the cost of digitizing
> materials for scholarly use--not publishing and copyrights,
> which is an entirely different matter.
>
> In any case, as Eric Holzenberg and others have aptly pointed
> out, a digital simulacrum will only get you so far in a
> research context. In these matters, I always seem to return to
> D.F. Mackenzie's aphorism about texts as physical objects:
> forms effect meanings.
>
> Edward Levin
>
>
> >Jack Kessler wrote:
> >ps. E.Levin: And libraries need not pay for the publishing:
> publishers will, just as before. For now Google Inc. is a
> publisher, and others will follow. Copyright which does not
> accommodate the changes will rob authors of income, and bankrupt
> publishers: so ultimately the almighty $ will change copyright.
> All this is pace Mr. Joyce, who apparently does not need the $.
>
>