The Industry Leader: Tip of the Hat, Wag of the Finger

RF typically avoids discussing individual library vendors. We wish to be impartial and objective, neither advocating nor decrying any company's products and policies. Industry leading OverDrive has been recently much in the news (and sometimes not in the news when they perhaps might be). In the spirit of the hibernating Stephen Colbert (the star of Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" and not the still-very-much-awake host of "The Late Show"), we offer a few tips of the hat and wags of the finger.

As reported by LJ in August, Sno-Isle and OverDrive tried demand-driven patron acquisition of titles. Patrons could select titles from OD's full catalog, with Sno-Isle picking up the cost and delivering content seamlessly. Results are encouraging, but the more expensive e-audiobooks soon proved to be a budget breaker and had to be scaled back. Special provisions prevented titles from being duplicated, so popular best sellers were not delivered over and over. A tip of the hat to OverDrive, with a RF thanks for being willing to experiment with a new model. Sno-Isle rightly issues some cautions about budgeting for this model, but it is delightful to see a library vendor respond to a request for creative solutions to getting patrons exactly what they want as quickly as is possible.

A wag of the finger to publishers who will not let even backlists be obtained for simultaneous access by customers on a per-download basis. This model could work--that is to say, create greater demand for your titles and more money for you.  Why not think about it?

A Wag of the Finger at OverDrive for its privacy policy. ReadersFirst has long advocated using the library barcode as the only identifier, authenticated only by a bounce against the library's ILS and with emails only used to notify of holds. The need to sign up for and authenticate an account via email should be avoided.  At least two large library systems are leaving OD for the competition in September, with Miami-Dade stating in a note to its patrons "Our decision also takes into consideration the protection of our patrons’ privacy from third party data mining. MDPLS’s Axis 360 service does not require you to create a separate account with a third party. You simply download the app, authenticate your library card number and PIN, and start reading or listening. Your Axis 360 username is not authenticated and your email address is only utilized by the app to send you notifications to pick up your holds. In contrast, OverDrive requires you to create a separate account directly with them in addition to your library account." RF supports these libraries and advises OD to consider the consequences of its policies. A monopoly on Kindle format isn't enough to keep library customers.

CORRECTION:  OverDrive points out that use of a library barcode without an email account is an option. Since OverDrive agreed to this option at ReadersFirst's suggestion some three years ago, and since we knew it was in place at one point, we are delighted to see it is still an option. RF regrets the error and takes back this wag of the finger.   

A Wag of the Finger at OD over dissolving its partnership with Barnes & Noble--not because of it did but for not releasing any notification of it. We don't blame OverDrive looking after its business interests. Besides, nobody rally wanted ANOTHER app to get content, and this system required not one but two apps--yukk! Why not at least tell libraries? A tip of the hat to  Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader for sharing the news.

A Tip of the Hat to OverDrive for offering tests of the new version of their app in beta. Testers are asked to say nothing about the app, so it may be some time before we get news about it. That OverDrive is soliciting librarian feedback is, however, to its credit.

Librarians often have a love-hate relationship with vendors. We like what they provide and dislike our dependency on them. RF hopes that OD appreciates the tips and will accept the wags in the spirit of constructive criticism. 

Do you have any tips or waqs to add? 

Michael Blackwell @ St Mary's

What Do You Know About SimplyE?

The library partners developing SimplyE request your feedback on improving ebooks in libraries. SimplyE is an multi-purpose ebook app developed by The New York Public Library, with partners from Minitex, DPLA, RAILS, Massachusetts Library System, the Connecticut State Library, and others. This survey will help us decide which app features to develop first, sample awareness of SimplyE within the library community, and learn more about ebook systems used in libraries and consortia.  The survey takes 10-15 minutes and your responses will be appreciated.  Please share the survey widely.

To take the survey, please go to: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YPR9399 

To learn more about SimplyE, please go to:  http://www.librarysimplified.org/

Thank you, Valerie Horton, Director, Minitex

The Pew Report on Reading: A [Digital] Library Perspective

By now, everyone in LibraryLand has seen the September 1 report and likely celebrated at least some.

It seems that reading may not, despite many greatly exaggerated reports, be on life support, attended in its last few minutes by quietly grieving holders of the MLIS, publishers begging miracle-working authors to try any means, except perhaps changes in DRM and book pricing (some things are too unholy to consider), to revive it.

Here's the survey. It is of course important for libraries to know societal trends. It brings some good news. In spite of having many other ways to be informed and entertained, Americans are still reading.  And since libraries might as well be called “Reading Is Us,” that’s good news.  Younger people are even more likely to read than others, it seems, so we may not be losing our core audience over time.  

If library print circulation is largely stagnant or even slightly declining--as seems to be the case in many libraries, after some decades of big increases--at least our circ trends reflect the whole culture staying about the same over the last few years in its reading habits. It's not great news.  But it isn't terrible.

Those surveyed perhaps most likely to use libraries are reading as much as ever and in some cases becoming even more format agnostic:  they will read in print, on phone, or on a tablet, depending on circumstances. Hooray!

But knowing more would help.

We pass over without comment the fact that people under 18 aren't even mentioned. Every survey has its limits. It wouldn't be fair to ask outside this one's parameters.

If 11% more people are "reading to research particular topics," perhaps we need to boost our collection of non-fiction. How are they reading to research? Is it print? Digital? Books? Some other length of monograph? Newspapers? Web postings? Blogs? What? Help! 

Library e-book and even more our digital audiobook use continues to rise, perhaps not for e-books at the amazing percentages we saw in 2011 – 2103, but at much higher rates than match this study and much higher than our print numbers. This growth continues in spite of the fact that, at least for many library e-book vendors, people often have to wait. Could it be that our users aren’t willing to pay the higher costs many e-book publishers now charge under agency pricing but are willing to borrow from us for "free"? Do we in libraries also benefit in the big trend away from consumers buying e-books from the major publishers and getting them instead from smaller publishers or even direct from authors at a fraction of the agency pricing?

The study also seems to ignore how different types of reading might be changing: for example, as noted by our friend the Digital Reader, paper romance and thriller sales (and, it seems in many libraries, circ stats too) are declining but reading in this format has soared on digital devices from library collections. Fantasy, SciFi, paranormal, and perhaps even mystery may follow this trend. Is the convenience of getting many titles quickly (and, in the case of Romance, not having to share those spicy book covers at check-out) revolutionizing part of the library business in ways not at all reflected in the survey?

 It's good to see that reading is not in decline but it isn't enough just to say "people love print" when so many other changes in our business are happening. Let's try to learn more, not just be glad people like print.

Perhaps some of these questions will be answered in the next Pew Survey on libraries. 

In the meantime, here’s one definite take away from the study that all libraries can support: since reading isn’t in dying, we in libraries should keep talking up our favorites, getting the word out to our users (and the media) on what’s worth a look. Let's have reading conversations with all ages. Reading isn’t on life support, but we need to help it stay vital. Print? E-book? Digital Audio? Graphic novel? It's good to know what will be in demand, bujt's let's be a sformat agnostic as our readers. "Reading," to quote Andrew Albanese, "is the product." Keep telling people about all the ways we get great content, and help people to find the books they like.

Good News for Interoperability Standards

The NISO membership has approved a working group to formalize standardized APIs to streamline the library-vendor site interoperability. If these standards can be developed, promulgated, and adopted--which is to say that libraries should by lobbying their vendors to use them--we will get closer to the seamless e-content experience that ReadersFirst has long fought fo.  See details below, and get involved! 

Baltimore, MD - August 25, 2016 - Voting Members of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) have approved a new project to modernize library-vendor technical interoperability to improve the access of digital library content and electronic books. Building upon a set of API (Application Programming Interface) Requirements developed by Queens Library, a new NISO Working Group will create a foundational API set that the library community can build on. This set will fulfill an array of user and library needs, including quicker response times, flexible item discovery and delivery options, improved resource availability, and more seamless integration of electronic and physical resources.

Library patrons should expect an excellent user experience and requisite level of convenience should be built into all customer-facing tools that service library patrons. This project is being undertaken to bring patrons' library experiences in line with the modern tools and technologies-especially mobile technologies-they are accustomed to using in other areas of their lives. Currently, libraries use varied technologies, some of which rely on outdated and slow communication protocols, to provide services to users. By establishing standards on RESTful Web services APIs as well as standard mobile extensions, the library industry will leave many archaic, difficult-to-use tool sets behind, and allow libraries more flexibility in meeting local needs.

"11.2 million patrons visited the Queens Library in 2015," says Kelvin Watson, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Vice President, Queens Library. "It's imperative that we keep them coming back by providing fast, efficient service that rivals what they experience in the commercial world. Queens Library, which serves one of the five most diverse counties in the United States, has a vested interest in undertaking this work to customize library operations for specialized local needs. We are excited to have initiated this project at NISO and we look forward to working with other participants to actualize our draft framework."

Volunteer working group members will deliver a foundational framework, in the form of a NISO Recommended Practice, that will communicate an understanding of how libraries should provide and receive data. These library-related communications and functions could include customized genre or category views for browse, search, and discovery of collections; user authentication; transmission of account information; management of barcodes; check out and return of items, streaming of online material, and other requirements as determined by stakeholders. Work will also include the creation of several proof-of-concept services that use the proposed approach to deliver services and a registry to enable supporting data providers and system vendors to communicate their support of the framework. The full work item approved by NISO Voting Members is available on the NISO website.

NISO's Associate Director of Programs, Nettie Lagace, comments, "NISO is eager to begin this work to improve library-patron interactions. Advancing vendor-library communication processes through consensus discussions and agreement is a natural fit in our portfolio of work. NISO's mission is to streamline the work of libraries and other information providers to get content into the hands of consumers." Lagace continues, "We encourage working group participation from libraries, library system providers, providers and distributors of e-books, recorded books, and other forms of digital content and media. We are looking forward to hearing from interested volunteers who can dedicate their technical talents to this important effort." Those who are interested in participating in the E-Content API Framework working group should contact Ms. Lagace at nlagace@niso.org.

A Statewide E-book platform and More: eGO and schoolbooks too

The Connecticut State Library has announced the first phase of their developing state-wide e-book platform. Called eGO, the app is based upon the Library Simplified app--specifically, the brandable iOS/Android compatible version called SimplyE developed by NYPL, about which we at RF have often posted news.

"Funding for this project was allotted by the State Bond Commission late last year.  The funds were appropriated by the General Assembly in response to a report by the Department of Consumer Protection which recommended, in light of the high cost libraries pay for eBooks, that the state develop its own eBook Platform.  Libraries often have several eBook platforms in order to provide a range of titles . The eGO app will bring all of the library’s eBooks into one easy-to-use eBook reader.  eBooks available from the developing statewide collection will also be included, eliminating the need to search multiple locations and have multiple eBook apps. There are many different library management systems in Connecticut and the app will be customized for each system in phases."

In addition, Connecticut will in the future deploy the Open eBooks app: "Through its partnership with NYPL and as part of the Open eBooks project, thousands of popular and award-winning titles will be available free for children from in-need households in Connecticut."

Said George Christian, Executive Director of Library Connection, Inc. [a consortium of 30 academic and pubic libraries in CT]  “ We believe this app will give patrons of our libraries an easy way to simultaneously discover all the eBooks that are available to them from our consortium’s shared collection, from the State Library’s One Click Digital collection, and from the collections at their home libraries that are restricted to their own patrons.”

Amen, Mr. Christian, and good luck to Connecticut. We hope this revolutionary app and platform spreads across the county. 

A Gathering Storm?

Another voice has joined the Library Copyright Alliance (speaking for ALA's Washington Office, Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries), Society of American Archivists, and DPLA in opposing changes to Section 108 of  copyright: the Internet Archive, home of the "Wayback Machine."

In this blog post, Lila Bailey cites some of the other groups lining up against change and wonders, quite rightly, who wants changes in the sections governing library use of materials. 

"This recent move, which has its genesis in an outdated set of proposals from 2008, is just another in series of out of touch ideas coming from the Copyright Office. We’ve seen them propose 'notice and staydown' filtering of the Internet and disastrous 'extended collective licensing' for digitization projects. These and other proposals have lead some to start asking whose Copyright Office this is, anyway. Now the Copyright Office wants to completely overhaul Section 108 of the Copyright Act, the 'library exceptions,' in ways that could break the Wayback Machine and repeal fair use for libraries."

"Drafting a law now could make something that is working well more complicated, and could calcify processes that would otherwise continue to evolve to make digitization efforts and web archiving work even better for libraries and content owners alike.

In fact, just proposing this new legislation will likely have the effect of hitting the pause button on libraries. It will lead to uncertainty for the libraries that have already begun to modernize by digitizing their analog collections and learning how to collect and preserve born-digital materials. It could lead libraries who have been considering such projects to 'wait and see'.”

A good friend of ReadersFirst, Carrie Russell of Washington's ALA Office, warns of what might result from a process that seems "Top secret, hush, hush."

With this many groups taking objection, librarians should be getting familiar with this issue and be ready to take a stand. Will changes in Section 108 inhibit fair use of materials? Does the Copyright Office already know what it wants and is it bowing to pressure from rights holders disappointed in the outcome of the Google case and eager to effect though legislation what could not be gotten through the courts? 

Far from closing "library exceptions," the Copyright Office should be looking at ways that licensing closes out public access to library materials--fair use that we have under copyright but not under restrictive contracts. The public has a right to information and libraries have a duty to preserve information. Be ready to tell your legislators that you oppose closing out so-called "library exceptions" and advocate for a laws that balance the rights of copyright holders and information consumers in a rapidly changing digital environment.

Michael Blackwell, St Mary's County Library

Standardized Library e-content APIs? Yes!

t the Digital Content Working Group sponsored panel discussion session at ALA Orlando, NISO CEO Todd Carpenter discussed an upcoming project that would establish a library API tool set, creating standards for vendors and libraries to provide content and enhance patron service. The NISO group would start with Queens Library’s API developments and build on them.

Good news!: the NISO Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee has approved the API project. It will now move to a 30-day ballot of NISO Voting members.

Here is a summary of the deliverables:

“A NISO Recommended Practice describing an API framework covering library-related communications and functions such as customized genre or category views for browse, search, and discovery of collections, catalog information, or digital resources, user authentication, transmission of account information, management of barcodes, check out and return items, stream audio/read material online, show item availability, cancel holds and item requests, and other requirements as determined by stakeholders such as any and all aspects of library operations that have need for convenient, secure, and real time transactions via web services.”

And a Summary of the Process: 

“A NISO working group comprised of stakeholders as described below will create the deliverables, using as a starting point the Queens Library API Requirements, which are expected to be modified by Working Group experts throughout the development.  Meetings will take place bi-weekly via telephone and WebEx. An in-person meeting or public forum scheduled as part of the process may also help to progress discussion and action. In addition, the Working Group experts will also create materials to help educate the community and support the ongoing effort.

Why is this important? Development of these API standards has the potential to enhance the library user’s experience, creating greater integration of platforms and content. It would establish standards that vendors could be asked to work within and libraries could employ nationally and even internationally. This initiative would further ReadersFirst's mission and help us realize our vision of interoperable content. ReadersFirst had adopted working on such standards as a goal, but decided instead that we would do all we could to support using Queens Library’s work as a standard.

Please consider helping:

If you or someone at your library is a voting member of NISO, please, please, please vote “yes.”

If you are interested in working on the project, NISO should (if the “yes” vote comes in) be looking for developers and interested librarians to participate.

If the standards take shape, we should all be discussing with our vendors and asking them to get on board.

Now is the time for all good librarians to come to the aid of the party.

SimplyE in the News . . . Again

Thanks to the redoubtable Micah May from New York Public Library for sharing news that the SimplyE app has gone past its "soft" roll-out and is now officially launched. 

Explains May:

"Although NYPL's SimplyE went into the App Store last month as part of a "soft launch" or "preview" it formally launched today with promotional materials in the branches and press push.  Here is some of the initial coverage:"

New York Daily News - ran in print today

AMNY Online

Library Journal Info Docket

CBS2 News Online

"We expect coverage in WNYC and Library Journal later this week.  I've been most excited about rave reviews on social media from our own librarians, who can be a tough audience."  

This app's implementation of ReadersFirst principles makes it the first library-developed tool for getting content across diverse platforms. Watch here for more news as it expands in use and is enhanced in features.

Michael Blackwell, St Mary's County Library

Maybe We Need Adult Coloring E-books?

Yesterday the American Association of Publishers released their StatShot Annual survey.

 “Produced by AAP, StatShot Annual estimates the total size of the U.S. publishing industry by collecting sales data in dollars and units from nearly 1,800 active U.S. publishers. Data is collected directly from publishers, with the help of distributors. Estimates are used for publishers who do not participate directly, based on their company financial reports, government filings, BooksinPrint, press releases, third party research services, and other third party sources.”

 http://newsroom.publishers.org/us-publishing-industrys-annual-survey-reveals-nearly-28-billion-in-revenue-in-2015/

 A quick summary:

 ·         Overall revenue and units sold are basically flat from 2014—revenue down a bit (0.6%) and units up a bit (0.5%)

·         Trade books increased slightly in both categories

·          It was a tough year in academic publishing, which shrank in both categories and pulled the overall numbers down

·         Adult books sales grew—thank you, coloring books (not that we want you in library collections)

·         Children’s/YA titles declined

·         Hardback and paperback numbers grew

·         E-book sales were down 11.3% and down 9.7% in units sold

·         Downloadable audio grew a whopping 37.6% in sales and 41.1% in units

 All that said, does this report tell the whole story? It certainly covers the sources of most library content (the 1,800 publishers). What would print look like if we took coloring books completely out? It leaves out the self-published e-book market. This market is growing, in part because publishers’ agency pricing puts many e-books beyond the “sweet spot” price that might attract more sales. See here for a study that (though it has limits in methodology, being based only on Amazon sales) tries to paint a fuller picture of the e-book market.  http://authorearnings.com/report/may-2016-report/

Library eBooks circ still seems to be growing (up around 15% in an admittedly unscientific ReadersFirst poll conducted earlier this year). Agency pricing is perhaps helping us there. AAP’s current StatShot does point to a trend that RF must increasingly include in our advocacy of a unified and streamlined user experience: downloadable audiobooks are becoming even more important (apps on phones helping?) and probably need to be a factor in future e-content considerations.  

A Step Forward in Europe?

Does a library have the same right to lend an e-book that it does with print? That question is very much up for debate in Europe, where e-book lending has not been so open as in the USA.  Not every publisher in Europe has been willing to sell e-books to libraries. Libraries in Europe were not even certain that it was legal to lend e-books and, it was argued, libraries should not be able to do so unless they had a license from the rights holder specifically allowing circulation. A case before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) may settle the matter. The outcome so far is looking good for libraries. Advocate General Maciej Szpunar has released an opinion, currently under review by the CJEU, holding that e-books should be covered under the same lending right as print.

As Nils Rauer and Eva Vona explain,  "The dispute that led to the request as submitted by the Dutch court arose between the library society Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken (VOB) and the collecting society Stichting Leenrecht. In the Netherlands, public libraries are required to obtain a license for lending e-books. VOB aims to introduce a “one copy one user” system. Under such scheme, libraries would be allowed to create and provide a digital copy of an e-book (Reproduction A) on their library server. The library user borrowing the e-book would be granted the option to download a digital copy (Reproduction B). Upon expiry of the lending period, the Reproduction B would become invalid and not accessible anymore. Moreover, during the time that the e-book has been lent out, no other library user could download a copy of the same e-book."

What seems like common practice to those used to libraries on this side of the Atlantic is in fact radical enough for a court ruling in Europe.

Szpunar's opinion is that the provisions governing library lending rights need to be interpreted dynamically, allowing new formats to be covered, even if they were not mentioned or even heard of when the provisions were originally drafted. He also stresses how library e-book use can benefit authors, perhaps giving them compensation without having to depend upon licensing agreements with publishers (from which, he says, they seldom gain). He also points to the important role libraries play in sharing and preserving as a justification for treating e-books the same as print.

Rauer and Vona note that the CJEU will need to balance the publishers' perspective with Szpunar's opinion in their ruling.  The European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations (EBLIDA) and IFLA, while quick to support Szpunar, hope to extend any ruling beyond his opinion: "The European library community notes that the CJEU Advocate-General’s Opinion challenges some current national laws and programmes for e-lending, but the question of market distortion, whereby publishers may refuse to make e-book titles available to libraries for lending, remains unsolved. Should the Court uphold the AG’s Opinion, we stand ready to provide expertise and support to legislators to bring about inclusive legislation which meets library patrons’ expectations and offers legal certainty for all." 

RF offers its support (however distant we are and how little it may help) to our library friends in EBLIDA and IFLA.  We hope that we might hear more about this situation at the upcoming IFLA conference in Columbus, OH.  We have European members. If we can do anything to help, please reach out. This case should be a rallying point for all librarians and inspire us to extend our efforts to ensure access to e-content in every continent. While the situation is better in the USA than in Europe, to judge at least from this case, our fight to get access under improved business models and to have e-books treated as much under copyright with as few problematic licensing restrictions as is feasible is far from over.  How might our copyright laws be enhanced to improve access to library e-book lending? And might we also learn something? Should more of us investigate in our own libraries, or at least support the many consortial efforts underway for libraries to have e-books on library servers, negotiating with rights holders for better access? Would some authors offer simultaneous use?  Would some publishers offer better pricing or access terms directly to libraries? The e-content world is young and we need constantly to explore and advocate.