Commons-blog notes this piece by Christopher Reed in the 20 Feb 2004 edition of The Chronicle (non-subscribers try this current free link to the text). Reed makes a good point about how subscription databases are taking over one of the roles of the library:

In the 1960s, departmental journal collections were centralized to gain economies of scale. Now, with electronic access and bundled price deals from publishers, the storehouse of knowledge has been further centralized and relocated to the computers of commercial publishing houses and professional societies. Like it or not, publishers have become the de facto libraries of the world. They know it and are exploiting it for unseemly financial gain. The average price of Elsevier journals has increased at three times the rate of the Consumer Price Index over the past 16 years. Elsevier profits were up 26 percent in 2002.

While this may in one way seem obvious---that is, the role that the subscription databases are filling in regards to journals--the question is whether or not libraires are learning from this lesson? Or will they similarly begin to let other parts of their collections be replaced by online book subscription services such as NetLibrary? If subscription services continue to increase, will other publishers step up and supply digital texts through services like NetLibrary so that libraries can cut costs of updating and maintaining their collections with new printed texts? Will libraries one day only house special collections which are not available through digital subscription?

On the other hand, as an alternative to the subscription-based model at all, I suggest that academic institutions should start to sponsor open access journals themselves. And more academic presses which are not in the hands of large publishing conglomerates. A guarantee of enough division from the publishing industry to help during this trend, as I see it, of the total digitalization of the library.