No offense, but you've got it all wrong. Many libraries already are those things (local archive, online content, free internet terminals, wifi). As a person wh

No offense, but you've got it all wrong. Many libraries already are those things (local archive, online content, free internet terminals, wifi). As a person who made it through college by leveraging the library because I couldn't afford many books, I think libraries and bookstores both serve an important function. The local library in my town is also a meeting ground for many kids after school. As a kid, I read hundreds of books, multiple per week. Dahl, Dickens, Wells, Chrichton, King, Twain, Defoe, Card, Dumas, Prachett, Eddings, and heaps more. How could I have done this without a library? How can any kid these days get that much reading without a library (apart from their parents splurging on a kindle). Incidentally, adding a DVD section doesn't make them "like blockbusters." Blockbusters failed because it was a corporate entity that needed to generate revenues to succeed. Libraries are trying to maximize social value, not profit. I learned grammar when my foreign parents borrowed a VHS from the library as a kid to show me at home. And multiplication. I would want my kids to watch certain classics on DVD too. Lord of the Rings. The Prestige. 12 Angry Men. The Godfather. You clearly don't use or have a need for the library. But don't criticize what you don't know.