I definitely agree with you (and Edward) that these issues need to be directly addressed by scholars. An essential part of justifying the costs of digital tools and resources will probably be how they fit into a greater scheme or strategy for serving researchers and the public, which will require us to ask difficult questions. Should we determine what gets archived based on scarcity of existing archives (filling a gap), availability of material for archiving (opportunity), or demand from researchers? Should we bias resource expenditure towards more "popular" topics, leaving others underdeveloped? The role of funding is important from another angle as wel: if a topic is more likely to attract financially well-backed researchers and sponsors, it is probably more likely to be worked on than one that has a dubious audience or one with less financial clout. What role should we let money play in these decisions?