[aiscott]

Hard-copies endure. Digital, not so much. Checkout Jordan Mechner's recent archaeological expedition to retrieve some source code of his from 25 years ago (Prince of Persia). It was nearly lost, and that is only 25 years!

The digital world is ephemeral.

[ctdonath]

Atlanta is enjoying an exhibit ("Passages") of a very large collection of very rare Bibles. From fragments of early/original texts (ex.: Dead Sea Scrolls) to definitive works (first-run King James Bible) to remarkable renditions (illuminated works) to unusual associations (mother-of-pearl encrusted cover Bible given by (!) Yassir Arafat) to notable errors (Wicked Bible, named for the single typo "Thou shalt commit adultery"), the soon-ending exhibition is for this thread a testimony of the importance of physical copies.

Per that last example, consider that the "Nooked" War and Peace could be considered a "great typo" someday sought after by collectors - except that, being ephemera, the digital copy will either be lost or copies unverifiable due to ease of replication.

I certainly appreciate the benefits of e-books. At the same time, physical presence carries a lot of meaning beyond just content. Alas for those notable books lost in a sea of bits...

[aamar]

Source code is intentionally kept secret and is different from the widely-distributed version.

The book-equivalent of source code is the collection of discarded drafts and working notes of the author. These, too, are often lost, but that has little to do with whether they are digital or not.

It's expensive to properly store and maintain physical copies of things like books. I understand that archivists have some trepidation replacing a known system of storing physical books with a relatively unfamiliar and untested system of storing digital goods. But the bugs are already being worked out; if you want to make sure something lasts, make it digital and make sure lots of others can get to it.