But there’s another, more profound question about e-readers that gets very little attention from the army of journalists scrutinizing every bell and whistle on the devices. E-book sales will disrupt not just the publishing industry and the act of reading – it will dramatically alter the availability to knowledge in our society. Will this disruption be for better or worse?

The printing press and public libraries did more to democratize knowledge than arguably anything else in history. Ideas and arts once only accessible to the wealthy and privileged became available to everyone. The e-book movement could be a force to democratize knowledge even further – or not.

There are plenty of scorecards to compare the myriad technical specifications of e-readers. Now we need one to help evaluate whether a particular set of e-book rules would be a net positive or negative for society at large.

In my view, the rise of e-books will have a profoundly positive impact on the world if: 
1. Books are cheaper. The less expensive they are, the more people can read them.
2. There is a better secondary market. Used books are more affordable and circulate long after the title is out of print.
3. Books are easier to share. Or hand down to your kids, donate to a book drive, or leave on your stoop for passers-by to take.
4. There are more books. And more knowledge, more information, more perspective.
5. Free options are more widely available. Such as a library (thanks to robber baron Andrew Carnegie for building thousands).
6. Books are harder to censor. Or recall or delete. Censorship has been a consistent threat as long as we’ve had writing and is everpresent even today (see churches burning Harry Potter, fatwas against Danish cartoonists, and China).
7. Books last longer. At least as long as a paper book.

Today, e-books are such a small percentage of the book market that they really have no impact at all. But just for kicks, and because the Kindle is the dominant e-reader (with an estimated six out of every 10 devices sold), let’s tally how the hit Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN) device fares using this scorecard.

1. Books are cheaper. Only if you are a bookworm and buy enough books to defray the cost of the Kindle. For the average reader, FAIL
2. There is a better secondary market. Not only not cheaper, but actually nonexistent. Amazon’s terms of service explicitly doesn’t allow you to “sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights” to your e-books.  FAIL
3. Books are easier to share. Not unless you’re willing to part with your Kindle for a few days. FAIL
4. There are more books. Given trivial reproduction costs and infinite shelf space, it’s safe to assume more books will be available. WIN
5. Free options are more widely available. There are a few libraries experimenting with lending Kindles, but this is a violation of Amazon’s Terms of Service.  FAIL
6. Books are harder to censor. Amazon answered that one when it magically caused 1984 to disappear from customers’ Kindles. When the Chinese government asked Google (NSDQ: GOOG) to get rid of all references to the Falun Gong and Tiananmen Square massacre, Google complied. FAIL
7. Books last longer. Digital books can last forever. (Provided Amazon doesn’t choose to follow the music industry and work hard to make your old media obsolete.)  WIN

Two up, five down. It’s clear that if we’re going to do well on this scorecard, the e-reader market will have to be a competitive one. As an optimist and technophile, I hope for the best. But some vigilance couldn’t hurt.

What do you think? Will there be a happy ending to the story?