Blog #6

Hafner, Katie. (2007) "History Digitized and Abriged." New York Times. available on 3/13/09 at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/business/yourmoney/11archive.html

In my opinion having a digital version of every artifact is unrealistic and unnecessary. Information about an artifact can be made available for widespread access and public awareness without digitization of the actual artifact. The question of objects being lost or forgotten by researchers could be solved more simply by having a good online catalog with a detailed description of artifacts. Those interested in doing research will not only be aware of their existence but will be able to better decide whether an object is worth traveling for, and amateur enthusiasts will be able to glean at least some information from this record. I also think it is unlikely that serious researchers will completely forsake non-digitized objects. There are too many non-digital objects and little hope that funding will be available to digitize all of them. This, combined with the level of detailed, comprehensive research necessary for creating a serious academic paper, means that scholars will not get far if they avoid encountering physical artifacts.

As far as the problem of audio collections and the cultural heritage they represent, I think this is an area where a majority of artifacts will have to be digitized for any future access to be possible. This will have to come from movements to get companies, institutions, and individuals that own these recordings to understand what is being lost if they do not digitize them and movements at the legal level to adjust copyright laws to address preservation. I also wonder what the specific restrictions on copying and distribution say about digitizing a recording but not publishing it online. If it is a replacement copy for a library that will give access to it through the more traditional routes, would this satisfy some of the legal restrictions?