> Books are a classic thing that should just be digitized and the originals sold off. > The value is in the content, not the paper and ink. Why wouldn't this

> Books are a classic thing that should just be digitized and the originals sold off. > The value is in the content, not the paper and ink. Why wouldn't this logic apply to e.g. paintings as well? Or even sculpture and various historical artifacts... Edit: I was asking the question rhetorically, to highlight the weakness of the original observation. Personally I do think there can be intrinsic historical value in the object of a book, regardless of the information that it happens to store.