Millions of books in the Library of Congress have deteriorated to the point where they can't be lent to users without risking irreparable damage.
Centuries-old print newspaper archives have been replaced by blurry reels of outdated microfilm degraded from years of overuse and time worn chemicals.
With the limits of analog technology, some say that digital storage is the wave of the future.
"It's clear that our culture is moving towards electronic preservation," said Jack Rakove, a history and American studies professor at Stanford University. "It's cheaper, more efficient and easier to search."
But digital archiving technology is costly and relatively untested. And not everyone agrees that it's the best way to preserve the nation's historical records.
Recently, a digital-age copyright dispute sparked debate over the future of electronic archives.
A case heard in the Supreme Court, Tasini et al v. The New York Times et al that pits writers against publishers, could determine the fate of thousands of freelance articles that have been re-published in electronic databases.
If the writers prevail, publishers could delete thousands of electronic articles to avoid provoking new lawsuits. A group of historians, siding with the publishers, argued that such dissolution could cause permanent holes in the historical record.
"This result will have unexpected, unprecedented and irreversible consequences for the integrity and accessibility of the historical record and the progress of historical scholarship," the historians argued.
Historians have a lot to lose if a complete record of the present is not preserved.
"The integrity of the historical record is the single most important consideration," said David M. Kennedy, a history professor at Stanford University. "If you tamper with that, it's very difficult to reconstruct."
As the Web becomes a primary research tool, some say that digital archiving is the best way to preserve the present.
"Electronic archives look to be the most economical and secure way for securing the present," Rakove said. "If you want information, you don't go to the library, you go to the Web."
But others say that digitization is no panacea. Paper and microfilm remain the only proven forms of preservation.
"Digital archives are a bit of a misnomer in terms of what the preservation medium is today," said Miriam Nesbit, legislative counsel for the American Library Association. "The preservation medium right now is still microfilm."
Technology used to transmit digital information changes so rapidly that it's often difficult for those trying to preserve it to keep pace.
Anyone who remembers floppy disks or Betamax knows that relying on technology that may be rendered obsolete is a risky endeavor. Electronic files could be degraded within decades unless archivists can build stable archives.
"There's a high risk for the long-term integrity of these digital files," said Paul Conway, head of Yale University Library's preservation department.
"An archival medium is something that will last forever," Nesbit said. "CD-ROMs haven't been around that long.... We don't know if they'll be around in 20 years."
While some abhor the idea of scrolling through ancient reels of microfilm, it's still a solid means of long-term preservation. Historical information that is sent to the National Archives on CD-ROM is still converted to magnetic tape.
"It seems like an old format, but we have experience with magnetic tape," Nesbit said. "It's a good way to store electronic information."
An even greater task is preserving materials that are "born digital" -- content such as electronic journals, e-mail messages and Web postings. Keeping that content alive, with hyperlinks intact, poses new challenges.
As archives move out of the library and into virtual space, some question exactly what digital information should be preserved and who should control it.
Under licensing agreements, libraries are not allowed to make copies of electronic materials for long-term archives. So libraries that only subscribe to an electronic version of a newspaper or journal may never have an opportunity to make preservation copies.
"This presents a new problem," Nesbit said. "There might very well be a point at which historical valuable resource materials are not in the hands of libraries, universities and archives, but reside in the hands of publishers."
If that happens, then scholars and library patrons will have to go outside the library to seek information.
While publishers and librarians wrestle over these issues, many are already teaming up to digitize collections.
The Yale University Library recently announced that it would create a digital archive for over 1,000 journals published electronically by Elsevier Science.
Bell & Howell recently announced plans to digitize the complete back file of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other national newspapers in its ProQuest Historical Newspapers project.
The Library of Congress has also launched a study to evaluate its digital strategy. A report found that even the world's largest library still lags behind, with 5 million online items representing a mere fraction of the more than 120 million items in its inventory.
Libraries and publishers are making great strides in finding long-term ways to preserve electronic media. But they still have a way to go.
"We're not there yet," Nesbit said.
