I'm not sure that I'm going to weep when the last library closes.
Let's put aside, just for a moment, the usefulness of libraries for people, who don't otherwise have the means, to get on the internet. Does a library really provide a service that the Internet can't better fulfill? I believe that the internet is a better medium to distribute music, newspapers and magazines, either commercially or as a social service. Why should books be any different?
I truly believe that the death of libraries can be the result of positive things. The internet can make more books more easily available to more people. It can also do so more cheaply. We aren't there yet - but I don't see it being a technical limitation at this point. It's unfortunate that people will lose their jobs, but they aren't the first, nor the last, victims of technological advancement.
Now, you still need to solve the problem of giving people access to the internet. But surely, if we focus on solving this one problem, we can do so in a more cost effective, and potentially better, way. If the main appeal of libraries is that they have free access to the Internet, then I'm not sure that's a strong argument in favor of libraries (as we know them).
You're missing the entire point of what a library is — it isn't a collection of books or computer terminals, but an educational community center. A good reference liberian can help someone out of work to find a job, they can help a business person do research or help someone navigate a government bureaucracy. For kids libraries are really education centers — and they also double as a meeting place for seniors. Libraries can house local history, be a showcase for local artists and show films. Libraries are meeting places for local organizations that focus on everything from a love of flowers to a chamber of commerce. Just like a museum or a school isn't replaced by technology — a library isn't replaced by technology.
I'd go further and say that libraries are one of society's more significant institutions and a powerful symbol that learning is a prized asset in its members. While the internet is more efficient and offers a greater range of materials I think that we are still in the early days of a transition to on-line learning and losing libraries at this moment risks letting the perceived value of education diminish in the eyes of the people who probably most need it.
You're missing the point — that's like calling a your smart phone an mp3 player. Librarians are really educators who provide a resource for the community. So it's a community center with a brain. And sadly the libraries that are getting closed are in the communities that really need them the most.
I'm not saying libraries are useless. I'm saying that much of their use is better served by the internet. Find a job? Do research? Navigate government documents? Even with respect to education we're seeing innovation from things like the Khan Academy.
The internet won't/can't replace everything a library does. Like providing a physical space, or services for elderly (which are often not connected).
That's my point, that perhaps they should focus on the areas where they truly serve a distinct (and valuable) service. Not only might they be more successful by focusing on a narrow set of services, but they might become more affordable to run.
Find a job? Do research? Navigate government documents? Even with respect to education we're seeing innovation from things like the Khan Academy.
If you expect the average citizen to do all those things online it may be reasonable, maybe for a generation, to replace at least some of the gone libraries by Internet literacy centers.
This is the key point. Many, many people do not have the informational literacy to even begin to do research work on their own in any medium, let alone on the Internet.
Furthermore, many documents and resources aren't digitized and aren't on any kind of networked computer or database, so how exactly is someone supposed to access these materials and in a timely fashion? Librarians specialize in knowing how to find and navigate those materials and sources.
There are relatively few technical limitations for access to books via the Internet. The bigger problem is a business/copyright law issue. The library model of lending a physical book has a firm, 200+ year tradition in the US. Until there is something similar for e-books, I would be hesitant to say that the Internet is your savior.
Music, newspapers, and magazines ? If that's what you think libraries are for, then yes they should die. Newspapers and magazines are dying, but many books never get old. (Or are fun to read anyway)
Books are quite different from movies and other forms of media. They require concentration and imagination to digest. Think about it as an exercise, if nothing else.
I don't have problems with the latter. When it comes to concentration - I'm easily distracted. For this reason most movies, particularly action flicks, bore me (exception: thrillers). But when I'm reading a book, I'm by definition concentrated on it.
While I read a lot of fiction, books as a form are just better at providing exhaustive information on a given topic. There are sites like Project Gutenberg, but until a decent and inexpensive eReader is available, they are no substitute.
Finally, libraries are a place where you can meet interesting people, often introverts like me. In my country 12% read more than 7 books a year. If I meet someone in a library, it's most likely an unusual person.
My first impulse was to lash back and defend libraries because of my incurable fondness for them and for paper books. But on some reflection I realise that this is like a spoken language going extinct - theres not much that can be done except translate the wisdom into the current lingua franca. So it might be nice to examine the things that libraries great and try to replicate them in future digital offerings. My list includes - universal access, a release valve from copyright where the people can access copyrighted works, availability of a friendly guide, different repositories that are curated for specialised subjects (like a tech library, arts library etc), good discoverability of books you dont know about, books classified by subject. Lastly libraries seem to be a great example of how infringement does not destroy industries so people building digital systems might do well to create some gaps through which knowledge can flow freely.
Let's put aside, just for a moment, the usefulness of libraries for people, who don't otherwise have the means, to get on the internet. Does a library really provide a service that the Internet can't better fulfill? I believe that the internet is a better medium to distribute music, newspapers and magazines, either commercially or as a social service. Why should books be any different?
I truly believe that the death of libraries can be the result of positive things. The internet can make more books more easily available to more people. It can also do so more cheaply. We aren't there yet - but I don't see it being a technical limitation at this point. It's unfortunate that people will lose their jobs, but they aren't the first, nor the last, victims of technological advancement.
Now, you still need to solve the problem of giving people access to the internet. But surely, if we focus on solving this one problem, we can do so in a more cost effective, and potentially better, way. If the main appeal of libraries is that they have free access to the Internet, then I'm not sure that's a strong argument in favor of libraries (as we know them).