The End of Paper Books 669
Hugh Pickens writes "Books are on their way to extinction, writes Kevin Kelly, adding that we are in a special moment when paper books are plentiful and cheap that will not last beyond the end of this century. 'It seems hard to believe now, but within a few generations, seeing an actual paper book will be as rare for most people as seeing an actual lion.' But a prudent society keeps at least one specimen of all it makes, so Brewster Kahle, the founder of the Internet Archive, has decided that we should keep a copy of every book that Google and Amazon scan so that somewhere in the world there was at least one physical copy to represent the millions of digital copies. That way, if anyone ever wondered if the digital book's text had become corrupted or altered, they could refer back to the physical book that was archived somewhere safe. The books are being stored in cardboard boxes, stacked five high on a pallet wrapped in plastic, stored 40,000 strong in a shipping container, inside a metal warehouse on a dead-end industrial street near the railroad tracks in Richmond California. In this nondescript and 'nothing valuable here' building, Kahle hopes to house 10 million books — about the contents of a world-class university library. 'It still amazes me that after 20 years the only publicly available back up of the internet is the privately funded Internet Archive. The only broad archive of television and radio broadcasts is the same organization,' writes Kelly. 'They are now backing up the backups of books. Someday we'll realize the precocious wisdom of it all and Brewster Kahle will be seen as a hero.'"
New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
A few generations until seeing a paper book is as rare as seeing a lion? Thats a bit absurd, I dont know anyone who has thrown out their book collection after getting a kindle. I have a rather extensive collection and though they mostly collect dust now I have no plans on ditching them. I can see a day where new books are no longer published but just expecting all of the old ones to just disappear is ridiculous.
A publisher's dream come true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think. With the death of paper books and the move to only digital copies (most of which will be slathered in DRM) you can eliminate the concept of resale, ensure that old editions of books become unusable, and revise history on the fly. Region lockouts, EULAs, acitvations and time limits. Then they can layer even more restrictions on top and enforce them via more bad pro-corporation, anti-citizen laws.
Sure seems like we're already on this road. All they need to do is require government licensing for access to a compiler...
Good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since after the EMP bombs all go off, no one's eReaders are gonna be working all that well anymore.
Doesn't *anyone* read science fiction anymore?
You people just aren't *near* paranoid enough.
Re:digital book needs to be screen reader open (Score:4, Insightful)
"Education" and its associated businesses are built upon the concept of captive audiences and extortion. The education industry is what needs to die.
Another End of Books Prediction (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another tech prediction... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, dude. Keep your prognostication within five, ten years, and you have a discussion on your hands. Stretch it out to the point where most people reading right now will be dead, and you're writing a bit of fluff that, by design, can't be refuted or argued with.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'd be really glad for my chunks of dead trees that have information about what plants are safe to eat, which ones are good for medicine, and so forth.
Granted, there will be an immediate scramble for survival, and I have no illusions that I'm in a good position to survive that, but in the long term there are lots of books that would be damn nice to have if you're lucky enough to survive.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:4, Insightful)
Older books on Kindle are flawed (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
we are in a special moment when paper books are plentiful and cheap [...] but within a few generations, seeing a actual paper book will be as rare for most people as seeing an actual lion
Ah, yes, I remember when lions were cheap and plentiful and virtually everyone saw at least a dozen of them on a daily basis. If only I had stocked up on lions back when I had the chance... :-(
Re:It's true (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never seen a vinyl record or and 8 track cassette.
Really though? That sounds facetious... and improbable.
If you would have just stuck with 8-track, I wouldn't have
said anything... but it's next to impossible to exist on
this planet, not be blind, surface from the subterranean
cave you live in occasionally and NOT have seen a
record... somewhere.
Which you could say, if I've never seen one, how do I
know I saw one, if I did. And that's where I say... it's
called anecdotal knowledge. Such as the lion that is
involved in this protracted analogy. The roar and the
sheer ominousness of the creature you would see,
would lead you to believe it was a lion from supposed
knowledge that you should have at this point.
I can mail you an Elvis 8-track if you like. It's in stereo.
};-)
-AI
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
I've read hundreds of books. I used to have boxes and boxes. Then I got tired of storing them, now I have hundreds of ebooks. A few gigs of data. I'm in my thirties. Books are just data. I'd rather just see MD5 hashes or something better to verify the data. Paper can be corrupted like anything else.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
But is this new? Go back 100 years. How many under-20 people had their own book collections?
If you're looking at the population as a whole, probably less. Books were quite expensive one hundred years ago and is was fashionable to write in only the most dense prose which required quite an education to understand. But if you just looked at the literate -- then I would say many more. Today, more people can read and write but far less of those people actually read books. And the standard is so low. How many 'literate' people who have H.S. diplomas can read A Tale of Two Cities and actually get through it, let alone understand it?
My grandmother didn't have an opportunity to go to college but many of my classics I inherited from her. She grew up during the Prohibition era so that's almost 100 years. It seems to me that with that generation one was either wholly ignorant or quite well educated. It took much more to simply graduate high school, but it meant more back then.
Basically, what I'm saying is that 100 years ago a child from an affluent family probably had an extensive book collection. A child from a poor family probably didn't have a single book and probably couldn't read. But children from affluent families today rarely have extensive book collections despite having the means and the education necessary. They have video games and computers. But most kids have at least one or two books laying around. Perhaps something they received as a present or some required reading for school.
There was a time when being upper-middle or upper class meant that one was educated. One couldn't get along socially or economically without it. For instance, here's a situation I'm sure some of you can relate with: You criticize a rich athlete/businessman/celebrity/politician for some decision or for saying something dumb and someone retorts with, "But they're rich." There was a time when the upper classes staunchly believed that money doesn't buy class. Today, money and class are considered one in the same.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I'd like to point out that most of what the average person would read probably wouldn't be considered quality literature anyway. So I wonder if there is any net effect if people begin to gravitate towards other media for entertainment. I remember when I was 18 I dated this girl who read nothing but trashy romance novels. She read them by the box full. In no way would I say she benefited intellectually from reading these books vs. watching the same stories as films (porn for women, IMO). If you look at it objectively, there's really nothing inherently better about books vs. other forms of entertainment. The only real benefit of books is that it is easier to fill them with useful information if you choose to. But you can also fill them with garbage that appeals to the masses and serves as little more than entertainment.
Libraries? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the rationale here? That Amazon and Apple are going to buy and shutdown all the public libraries, including the Library of Congress? There's a fine line between being forward-thinking and being, well, nuts.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe you could learn something about life by reading books that never go out of date?
Read "The Old Man and the Sea" and learn how a man can persist at his work and life despite the hardships thrown at him?
Read "The Great Gatsby" to gain some perspective on how yearning after wealth for its own sake is a futile pursuit?
Read just about anything. Your definition of the word "learn" is far narrower than it ought to be.
"The man who does not read is no better off than the man who cannot read."
Re:It'll be a sad day (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the odds of a file created toady being readable in a 100 years?
Pretty high. If your format is plain text, or plain text with extra markup (i.e. still readable without a viewer - like, say, HTML), then I don't see why it would go away. I have some text files around, authored by me, which are over 15 years now and still perfectly readable. With plain text, the only issue is encoding, but we haven't had upheavals in that department in quite a while - ASCII is almost 50 years old, and even Unicode has been around for 20 years now - and Unicode 1.0 was already enough to archive pretty much any work of Western civilization.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:5, Insightful)
there's really nothing inherently better about books vs. other forms of entertainment.
I don't think it is possible to disagree with you more.
I was 9 years old when I started reading the Xanth series books by Piers Anthony. I started with the middle of series at the time. For somebody my age, the protagonist was very accessible to me. I related to him. There could never be an adaption of that book in an other form of media that could even be a shadow of that universe in my mind. Not possible.
I was 11 when I read the full edition of the Lord of the Rings after The Hobbit. It was a family copy, which meant it was not the edited crap that was mostly available in libraries throughout the 70's and 80's. My copy (now passed down to me) was published in the 50's.
It was indescribable to me what I went through reading that. The scope of that world, the "resolution" and "texture" that it took in my mind could never be replaced or compared too. The LOTR movies are "passable". By that, I really mean crap. They could not tell the fully story. Literally. They left out Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. I can understand that back story behind that, but as a child, I understood him to be literally beyond the powers of the rings themselves. That grabbed my mind and imagination. Even Gandalf, which accordingly, is one of the strongest and most powerful beings in all of Middle Earth. Also known as Olorin, of the Maiar and disciple of Nienna. Yet, he is still under the influence of the rings.
The LOTR universe cannot be translated from a book. It can only be read.
Then of course there is the ridiculous expansion throughout the Rama series with Arthur C Clarke, of which The Garden of Rama was my favorite. How could *that* be transferred to another medium?
Maybe you are right about the average person today. However, I hated English class, with a passion of a thousand Suns. I never hated the books. Maya Angelou's I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, Kafka's the Metamorphosis, Jack London's the Sea Wolf. I was exposed to all of those books through English class. I had no interest in sharing with others (at the time) what I felt about it. Fuck a book report. Seriously? How am I supposed to put into words at 10 years old what the Sea Wolf was like to me?
I cannot put into words the worlds that were created in my head from the act of reading those books. They caused me to think, to feel, to cry, to look within myself. They showed me nobility, evil, heroism, sacrifice. Books helped me become the person I am today by shaping my experiences. Not Movies. Books.
My love of what books did for me and where they took me can be described no better than what my punishment was a child. I was expelled from the house, but strip searched for a book first.
There is just no way, that even the most god-like director can ever create on a screen what so many of us here on Slashdot have created in our own minds.
Inherently no differrent?
Sir you must be jesting. A comparison of the two is a farce at best. The difference between a flashlight and the Glory of the Sun. Whether it changes from verbal stories, to scrolls, to parchments, to paper, to digital 1's and 0's held within crystal structures makes no difference.
The day we lose the written word, is the day we start slipping into a Dark Age, or more likely Idiocracy realized complete.
There is only one way to go further and that is for the authors themselves to create the worlds in their minds, fully formed, and then telepathically transmit all of to us.
Movies? I don't think so.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say that, while there isn't anything necessarily better about books than other forms of entertainment, there is something different. The demands on the attention span and memory from long-form written fiction are very, very different from the demands of movies, television shows, etc. Also, even if the material isn't very complex, just sheer practice means that voracious readers tend to be more fluent readers.
And, from a less aggressively practical perspective, the novel as a medium has different strong and weak points than film or television, which carry over across all levels of quality. Example - romance novels tend to have better characterization than softcore porn directed at women - not due to any difference in quality of writing, but due to the larger space and ability to easily represent internal dialogue.
Re:New Books Maybe Old Books Never (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, a girl who read books on linear algebra wouldn't even notice your existence.
Because she's out of my league or because she's socially retarded? Probably more the latter.
Books are quite different from video. If you go watch a movie, what you see is what it is, literally. Not a bit more, not a bit less.
The question isn't how they're different. The question is how they're better or more intellectual. Any moron can tell you how they're different.
You are fed the whole story; there is no gaps for your own imagination to fill. You consume, then the movie is over and it's out of your memory before you leave the theater.
No, you're "fed" information through multiple senses. It is more efficient that way. A good story is just as deep and thought provoking regardless of how you tell it. You can forget a book just as easily as a movie.
On the other hand, a book may tell you that the forest was dark and spooky, but you have to use your own imagination, your own memories and your own fears to "color" that picture. One book can tell as many stories as many readers it has. The book doesn't walk you, like an infant, through every bit of the story.
Right, because people watching movies *never* have different interpretations and experiences. What a bunch of nonsense.
There are other differences too. How many people watch a DVD in 10-15 minute increments? I think not many. But a book can be read this way; most fiction books are read like that.
A DVD is not necessarily the best comparison. Consider a series like Lost. You get weekly 41 minute doses of a single story line over the course of several YEARS. Say what you will about the quality of the story, but you have to admit that there were a lot of details to keep track of. It was enough to spawn whole communities of people dedicated to documented all the details in order to decipher various puzzles. These long running story lines are becoming much more common. Gone are the days when every TV show and movie was a single, self contained story arc.
The End of Libraries? Not really (Score:4, Insightful)