1) I disagree that Blockbuster-level DVDs isn’t part of a paradigmatic repository of knowledge. It’s not the whole, but it is a part. I’m one of those folks who thinks libraries ought to collect everything, including zines, posters, pamphlets, ephemera of all sorts, and even Son of Hollywood Blockbuster XIV. The only real justification for failing to do so is the pragmatic considerations of shelf space, cataloging resources, etc. So Mark Fiore’s animated cartoons really should be collected, and I really hope that some enterprising special collections librarian is working on subject-specific archives of Yahoo! Groups, listserves, UseNet, and the like. The Internet Archive can’t do be the only archive of the Internet.

2) I must come across as much more definitive than I think I do. I do know that libraries aren’t easily defined, and I certainly know that a lot of librarians would “But—!” in outrage at my proposed Essence of Library. What the heck, it’s just a model. <grin;>

3) Eric completely got me on one point: a huge, huge aspect of libraries is the “place to hang out”; that’s an essential function that I didn’t discuss at all. So, I’ll modify my (proposed) Essence of Library: a) information warehousing; b) information accessing; and c) social space. Right now, GooglePrint and libraries look pretty different on all 3 categories. But the information landscape is shifting pretty rapidly, between rapid digitization of old media, and rapid generation of new media formats. It seems to me that technology shifts are exacerbating the differences between a) (information warehousing) and b) (information accessing). I still want libraries that do special collections & archives — information warehousing. But in the future, I also want libraries to provide the best possible information access. It seems to me likely that there will be a fair amount of convergent evolution between Google and libraries in their information accessing mode. If so, then we’d better know what is the essence of libraries, as Michael Madison suggested, because there is a significant amount of library exceptionalism within current copyright law. So what is the essence of libraries? Is it the combination of the 3 functions? If (as I bet) functions a and b are diverging, then is it the combination of one of them with c) that makes a library? If Google Print is not a library, then what is the Internet Archive? I’m not saying I know the answers; I’m just saying these questions trouble me. I love libraries, but maybe I’m driving myself to not loving library exceptions in copyright; maybe I just want more reasonable copyright, across the board, that inherently allows things like the libraries of today and the libraries and GooglePrints of tomorrow. Since that seems unlikely, though, maybe library exceptionalism the best we can hope for. And if so, then I come back once again to wondering whether it’s not more fruitful for the library community to define itself more inclusively than exclusively, given the porousness of copyright law and the rapidly shifting media landscape.

Ugh, too long, and I’m too tired; I may be shedding more confusion than light at this point. Probably time to ponder rather than write.

I do believe that copyright law hasn’t caught up with “born digital” objects. I’ve gotten some interesting advice from UT’s General Counsel on that subject…

The essence of a library- I’m planning to dust off my LIS text books to see what I can find when I get the chance, and see what the people in my School are teaching, at least. ^_^;

Libraries serve a multitude of functions that reflect both their physical structure (i.e., a place to hang out) and the intangible content they store (a repository of knowledge). With the explosion of content, both printed and electronic, libraries face an increasing challenge with the latter.

For many of us, now, (I’m sad to say) libraries are a way to get state-subsidized content–free DVD rentals, free best-seller books. Sure, I could go to Blockbuster and rent a DVD, or buy the bestseller on Amazon, but why do so when I’ve paid for it already through my taxes? This is hardly the paradigmatic repository of knowledge; it’s just a state-mandated reallocation of wealth to fund free content in competition with pay options.

I recognize libraries serve many other roles, including a public space for gathering and, increasingly, a place to get free Internet. However, until we nail down what makes a library a library, I’m not sure we can know if Google is or isn’t one.

In any case, I’d be happy to statutorily confirm that Google and other search engines are libraries for purposes of the copyright act. (Not politically realistic, but we can dream) Until then, we know that Google isn’t a library (or an archive), although we can’t say with precision what it would have to do different to be one.

Eric.