|
Preview of November 5
Presentation for E-Book 2001
TeleRead: The Case for a Well-Stocked National Digital Library
System for All
David H. Rothman, National Coordinator
of TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home
TeleRead’s
Background:
This noncommercial proposal tells how to use technology to promote literacy and
learning in general and encourage similar efforts in other countries. TeleRead
is also the name of a small, Net-based group with email subscribers in the
United States, Israel, Mexico, India and Pakistan (teleread.org). TeleRead
articles have appeared in the Washington Post,
Computerworld and U.S. News & World Report. An earlier
version of the present TeleRead plan is the concluding chapter of Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic
Frontier (MIT Press/ASIS). William F. Buckley, Jr., has written two
favorable columns on TeleRead idea, which I have been advocating for the past
decade.
Why TeleRead
Is a “Must”:
Do we really want to replicate online the “savage inequalities” of our schools
and libraries? In one year, a budget-strapped California county spent just 25
cents per resident on books and other library content. The success of a Chicago
parochial school with RocketBooks suggest that e-books can be a cost-effective
way to expand reading choices for the children of low-income parents. At the
same time, TeleRead would help the elite, too, by increasing the variety of
books available in Bethesda, not just Anacostia. Moreover, e-books at home
would be valuable to aging baby boomers who may not be able to drive to the
library, or whose eyes could benefit from the enlarged type on the screens of
e-book-readers. If nothing else, TeleRead is a way to help text survive and
thrive in a multimedia age—a worthy goal in itself.
Main Elements
of TeleRead:
A well-stocked national digital library system would focus on books but also be
rich in appropriate multimedia and
expand on the valuable American Memory project. Aid would go to local libraries
and schools to help absorb the technology and content. Beyond educational
benefits, cost-justification would occur through greater government efficiency
and promotion of Net commerce at a crucial time. In addition, TeleRead would
offer remote and on-site assistance to other countries in the form of help with
the technology, the absorption of it, the legalities and the library science
details. In the standards area, TeleRead could build on the work of groups like
the Open eBook Forum and the National Information Standards Organization—and,
yes, also use the expertise of the Convergent Information Systems Division at
the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Beneficiaries: First, schoolchildren,
other learners and our underfunded libraries, which devote just a fraction of
their money to actual content. Second, content-creators. Third, the e-book
industry—hardly stellar so far in its marketing to schools and libraries.
Fourth, business in general, which would enjoy a better-educated workforce.
Fifth, everyone, in terms of cultural preservation. One of the goals of today’s
terrorists is the extermination of “Satanic” cultures, especially America’s.
TeleRead would help protect content, not just the networks that transmitted it.
With books, art, music and other culture backed up—through closely monitored
archives on different storage media and in many countries—fanatics could not
completely destroy any nation’s library. Do not be surprised if the physical
Library of Congress is eventually on the hit list of a bin Laden-style
terrorist. While TeleRead could never bring incinerated books, paintings or
recordings back to life in their physical forms, it at least could preserve the
words, images and sounds.
Participants: Libraries, museums, content-providers, nonprofits, individual
philanthropists and corporations would all have roles. The library and museum
systems would help supply the general infrastructure and work with
content-providers to set the general direction. Nonprofits and individual
philanthropists would contribute content or finance it. TeleRead servers could
house, for example, a “William and Melinda Gates Collection.” Even after the
dotcom debacle, billions of dollars are looking for the right charity, and
TeleRead would help send more of it in the direction of the librarydom. As for
corporations, they could donate money to TeleRead, provide technical services,
and, of course, in the case of publishers, sell content.
How TeleRead
Differs from Many Existing Visions: Most of all, TeleRead would offer better
integration of a national digital library system into the schools and the rest
of society. Second, it would be closer to the Carnegie version of “free”
libraries than most other plans even though not everything would be free.
Third, TeleRead could let users store content on their own machines for fast
reference and the sharing of books
with friends. Tracking of accesses could still occur through techniques already
planned for commercial use. Fourth, TeleRead would offer massive archives for
both public accesses and backup. Fifth, it would systematically cost-justify
itself with inexpensive multi-use machines that could display e-books in style
but also work with government forms and Net commerce, as well as
word-processing, spreadsheets and other common applications. TeleRead would
encourage the e-book industry to sell machines to libraries and schools at
discount or perhaps even give them away in some cases. Lent out to the public,
these demo units would boost the demand for e-book-friendly computers and more
quickly drive down costs to the point where just about all machines would be
privately owned. Please note that while most American families own computers,
tens of millions still lack them—probably less for economic reasons than
because of the technological challenges. An integrated approach like TeleRead,
combining the most suitable technology with the human side, could use libraries
to address this problem.
Role of
Content Providers: TeleRead would enable publishers and writers to worry less about the
details of distribution and marketing and more about content. The plan could
pay by the number of accesses. Large publishers could gamble money up-front to
be able to qualify for larger payments later on. Whether librarians like it or
not, the publishing industry will insist that the popularity of commercial book
influence the amount of compensation granted. But at least with TeleRead
library books, publishers would have to pay to play in the big leagues, so that
a few best-sellers would not dominate the spending on content. TeleRead strives
for the balance missing from certain library-originated plans. It is fair both
to schoolchildren and Random House. Ironically, if we find that technology
cannot prevent massive piracy, a library approach could be more helpful to
publishers than alternatives—by making it easier to collect money for content
and by making thousands of books “free” and thus of less interest to pirates.
TeleRead could combine both the library distribution system and the spine of a
commercial one. Content-providers could decide whether to sell books
commercially through the digital library system, at prices they wanted, or
offer them for royalties decided by the TeleRead system. Most books go out of
print within a few years. So a typical pattern might be for many worthwhile
commercial books to become TeleRead offerings in time. TeleRead would actually
mean more revenue for good
publishers. What’s more, book-sellers could either become publishers themselves
or offer enhanced versions of the TeleRead catalogue and database. A good
example is Amazon.com, which collects readers’ comments on individual items and
which aggressively cross-promotes.
TeleRead and
Public Libraries: Certain librarians and
hangers-on see electronic books as threats to their careers or at least their
bureaucratic turfs. Library Journal has
denied me space to discuss TeleRead; and meanwhile a Journal editor has misleadingly implied that TeleRead would favor
books by popularity alone. Her column ignored TeleRead’s pay-to-play feature,
which would open spigots of money for less popular books. She was pandering to
turf-fixated librarians who hate the idea of ordinary mortals easily finding
titles that librarians have not blessed. Critics ignore the fact that TeleRead
could limit searches to items approved by local or national libraries, just so
the readers toggled in this filtering. Quite perceptively, John Iliff, a
veteran reference librarian and a former co-moderator of an influential library
list on the Internet, has compared TeleRead to fluoride. He wishes that certain
librarians were more like dentists and fretted less about job protection and
more about the commonweal. Actually, as John and I both know, TeleRead would be
a godsend to librarians since they could spend less time as clerks and
stockroom workers and more time creating and annotating hyperlinks, packaging
information and knowledge in other ways, and serving as mentors to library
users. TeleRead would not eliminate
the reference desk. Local librarians, moreover, could even create customized
search engines and link sets and otherwise adapt the national collection to
serve the exact needs of their own users. A library in Gloucester,
Massachusetts, for example, could assemble detailed links on the latest
technologies for sword-fishing. What’s more, librarians and teachers could work
more closely than at present; and, either in person or from afar, librarians
could help guide schoolchildren and other library users through research
projects. Also of interest to local librarians, TeleRead for years has called
for local and state libraries to participate with national libraries and
content experts in the selection of books for the national collection.
Furthermore, TeleRead would not prevent local libraries from purchasing e-books
and other items just for their localities. They could even use the national
infrastructure as a way for local people to obtain this content, the only
difference being the geographical access limitation. If enough local libraries
kept acquiring a title, it might be a signal for the national collection to
include it. Finally let me note one recent change in TeleRead in regard to
libraries—a modification that may save a few elderly librarians from fatal
coronaries. I have dropped the idea of publishers gambling money to be able to
bypass librarians; that would be unnecessary if distribution systems for
libraries and the commercial side overlapped sufficiently.
The Schools: TeleRead would encourage
reading and learning by making it easier for children to discover books that
exactly reflected their interests. Children could even beam books to each
other, via infrared, without having to call them up online, although the
accesses would later be reported automatically to assure compensation to
publishers. TeleRead could make use of the natural “ecology of learning”—with
teachers and librarians serving as foresters rather than dictating the location
of every little bush. At the same time, since the hardware, software and
library systems were so well integrated, TeleRead could better handle school
and parental filtering than alternatives could. Best of all, books could be
more current and cheaper without all that paper and ink to keep replacing.
Case History: I am grateful to Searchlight eBook Training, Inc. (eBook-Training.com)
for calling my attention to the achievements of one of its clients, St.
Elizabeth’s Catholic School on the Southside of Chicago, where the teachers
report that ebooks have saved money and intensified children’s interest in
reading. Librarians and others should worry less about paper and ink and
cardboard—and more about the words and
whether children will grow to love books.
A fourth-grader named Shaneka has nicely explained why the children in Mrs.
Devers’ class are e-book enthusiasts. She mentions such delights as the ability
to alter the size of the print or change the background from light to dark. But
her first reason is the one about which educators and librarians should care
the most, regardless of the medium. “Ebooks are fun,” she says, “because you
can read stories.” In the case history at teleread.org, I explain how St.
Elizabeth’s has succeeded—not by turning teachers into technowhizzes, but by
making it easier for them and their students to interact in very traditional
and meaningful ways.
Contact
information: David Rothman, rothman@clark.net, telephone 703-370-6540. Address:
805 N. Howard St., #240, Alexandria, VA 22304. A hyperlinked version of this
document is at http://www.teleread.org/ebook2001preview.html. For time reasons, the forthcoming PowerPoint presentation will omit
many of the details here.