For the three kinds of issues of DPLA, I think they could be connected and discussed together. For the scope of DPLA, I think they can digitize and manage the ebooks and academic journals separately, then make them accessed by the public. In Dillon’s interview, Darnton said that they would put “some focus on copyrighted materials that are out of print.” I have learnt from a course named Electronic Resource Management And Licensing that academic work usually goes out of print quickly, thus librarians should always pay attention to them. That’s why digitization of the academic work is welcomed. So I am wondering if that is also the reason why Darnton want to focus on the “copyrighted materials that are out of print”. Those digital journals is always needed. Would that make DPLA more academic? However, since DPLA is trying to make efforts to provide all kinds of digital materials to the public, I think they are not “too academic” in this way. Also, it is reasonable to add “public” into DPLA’s name. But, in the discussion of the name, I think the “public” used in DPLA’s name could effect the budget of local public libraries. Because the local public libraries may want to develop their own digital collections, they need budget for both ebooks and other projects. Without funding, they could not work on their own projects. For example, local public libraries may want to digitize the letters and photos of a local famous person.
For the issue of funding, I am also wondering who would support the DPLA to provide access to the public in the future. This will effect what DPLA focuses on. Will DPLA collaborate with the universities? And the funding could have an effect on the quality of the services, too. For example, I know that the popular ebooks and audio books in Madison Public Library’s digital collection have more copies. Thus, funding is also an important part to define what is DPLA, and how it works for the public.