Alan Inouye: How Will We Ever Resolve the Library Digital Content Problem?

Alan Inouye, ALA’s Senior Director of Public Policy & Government Relations (and soon retiring—good luck, Alan, and we’ll miss your wisdom and advocacy!) has published an article in the current issue of Maine Policy Review asking this question. The issue has thoughtful articles on librarianship and climate change, “social work creep,” intellectual freedom and managing print collections and is well worth a look, but this particular article is most central for RF concerns.

Here is the abstract:

Library access to digital content is characterized by a big dose of exasperation. Although digital content provides some remarkable benefits, the shift of the access rubric from copyright to licenses provided many inferior provisions for libraries. This dilemma spans library type, and features the digital book issue with public libraries in the 2010s to the present. In the past decades, the library community has advocated for change via direct engagement with the industry, state legislation, federal policy and media campaigns. Overall, these efforts have been modestly effective at best. Fundamental reconsideration of the path forward is needed. The first step on that path is a thoughtful assessment of the needs and opportunities for digital content in libraries, and the resulting possible policy directions.

One might, alas, go as far as to say efforts have been a failure. We have made modest increases in the variety of licenses; more publishers provide offerings than in 2010, including many smaller or medium-sized and Indie publishers where solid deals on some excellent content provide solid choices. Not every Big 5 (then Big 6) publishers was offering ebooks in 2010, but those that did offered “perpetual access” at hardcover prices. With the disappearance of that option and the growth of metered access at inflated (to put it mildly) costs, the years since then (especially 2018/9) read as a history of public libraries taking it on the chin. School and academic libraries fare no better.

So, is it time for “a thoughtful assessment of the needs and opportunities for digital content in libraries, and the resulting possible policy directions”? Phrased this way, as the article does, perhaps:

Most importantly, we must get beyond facile and simplistic slogans such as “we want lower prices.” Indeed, we do, but narrowly focusing on price is not a viable strategy. We must avoid knee-jerk reactions, and we must not expect easy wins, since there are no such things. First, we must focus on what libraries will need and want to serve their communities. Then we must consider, what is obtainable in the political and business realms. There is no easy answer or shortcut. . . . The library community has much remedial work to do.

We do have much remedial work to do. But does “what is obtainable in the political and business realms” mean giving up the quest for a robust and sustainable digital collection—which the public certainly indicates they want through their library use patterns, and which is increasingly vital for preserving access? I’m not sure how and where this remedial work will be done. We haven’t been so very good at developing a unified policy across libraries. Can we do better? No matter what, any discussion needs to needs to take place with the understanding that we aren’t going to get anything without a fight. Haven’t at least the big publishers shown they won’t ever bend, even as other publishers have shown it is possible to run a business without digital terms so utterly different and worse than print sales? Is the fight worth it? Do we stand a chance? Prospects at the federal level are grim, even more so now with the incoming administration so obviously privileging corporations over the public weal. Perhaps digital, especially streaming, will spell the end of libraries as the gatherer of public funds to benefit all in a way that few can achieve individually. The big publishers have shown they are perfectly willing in digital to leave libraries out, preferring many individual sales over collective sharing. The effort is not just about digital. It’s about libraries fulfilling their basic mission of supporting the public by pooling resources for the good of all, no matter what the format. If we don’t fight for that as the end goal, then we might as well throw in the towel now and resign ourselves to libraries being supplanted, at least in digital. With the many forces fighting against libraries and many other agencies because they despise government action and want everything privatized, is this a fight we can ignore?