Our Friends at ALA Washington Office Suggest Some Ways to Help Politically

Congress may be on recess until after Labor Day, but there are still ways you can stay involved in advocacy during the month of August!

Telling the FCC to Save Net Neutrality

There's still time to submit a comment to the FCC in support of net neutrality! The deadline to submit a comment is August 16, 2017.

 Leave a Comment 

Urging Congress to vote yes on library funding

We expect to see both the House and the Senate vote on their respective spending bills this fall. Give your representative and senators a call at their district offices during August and remind them how important federal library funding is to you and your community.

 Send an Email 

Asking your representative to sponsor the Congressional App Challenge

The 2017 Congressional App Challenge is an annual competition that aims to engage student creativity and encourage participation in STEM and computer science education. This nationwide event allows high school students from across the country to compete against their peers by creating and exhibiting their own original app. Students can't enter the competition unless their representative agrees to participate in the challenge. Ask your representative to sign up!

 Send an Email 

Looking for other ways to advocate for libraries? Consider writing a short letter to the editor of your local paper, scheduling a meeting with your elected officials, or starting a creative campaign in your library!

--ALA's Washington Office

The Internet Archive Is Accepting Applications for Public Libraries & Librarians

Internet Archive is offering $25,000 in web archiving services to each library, plus training and travel grants to public librarians

Internet Archive is currently offering grants to public libraries and librarians as part of a new program to build community history web archives. This program is designed to support public librarians in developing expertise in creating collections of historically valuable web materials that document their local communities. The project, Community Webs: Empowering Public Librarians to Create Community History Web Archives, is funded by the IMLS as part of a Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian grant.

Internet Archive is now accepting applications from public libraries to participate in the program. Applications are open now and will close on August 25.  Visit the program's web page for more information, and view the project's grant materials, available through the IMLS award page.

ReadersFirst supports efforts that lead to digital preservation, especially if they increase titles available to users through OPDS feeds. 

Good luck to all who apply!

Reactions to Cost-Per Circ-Model

Reactions to the HarperCollins announcement of a "cost-per-circ model (CPC)," with several library e-content vendors quickly announcing they would support the model, have been quick in coming.  Some of the reactions have been cautionary.

For example, Bill Rosenblatt suggests Libraries:  Be Careful What You Wish For. This thoughtful post points out the new model is "great for library patrons . . . in theory." The reality may be "CPC may end up being better for the publishers [and] give more control over the titles that libraries make available and reduce libraries' traditional curatorial roles." He contrasts the CPC model with the current "Pretend Its Print (PIP)" model. Rosenblatt points out that PIP offers advantages: more titles, including front list bestsellers; furthermore, there is no need to limit circs per month, as many libraries must to make CPC fit into a budget. He explains that cost per use figures aren't available yet and wont be until "the catalogs that publishers make available under the two models are similar." 

CPC also "gives more control over e-book distribution to publishers." Libraries can no longer argue, as they might more easily under licensing with PIP, that we have "the right to acquire which e-books titles they want and (probably) pay consumer prices." Pricing of e-books under CPC, he adds, may have no relation to cover pricing, allowing publishers to set high price-per-use for high demand titles; libraries might respond by suppressing "availability of certain highly popular e-book titles, because  . . . patrons will blow through the e-book budgets." Publishers, he adds, may "deliberately choose [what] to make available over which services and at what license fees." He concludes that though "we are in early days" with CPC, libraries "will need to consider their traditional functions of curation and community services as well as the bottom line." 

On The Digital Reader, Nate Hoffelder points out in "The Problem with Hoopla’s Pay-Per-Loan Model" that "librarians also liked the model because it meant they would not have to pay full price to get copies that might go unused, but then the monthly bills started arriving and the honeymoon ended." He then cites how 4 libraries have put borrowing limits on Hoopla. He reports the 43 library system Clevnet dropped the consortia offering of Hoopla due to cost; most of the libraries then got Hoopla on their own without funding issue "but then again only 2% or 3% of their patrons are signed up. As that number grows, the libraries are bound to be facing a budget crunch."

The point of this post is not to dispute these claims but to add to the discussion. Doubtless, libraries should pay attention to curation, access to content, and cost when examining new e-content business models. Cost per use is a potential budget buster.  To use the example of my own small (3 location) system, Hoopla use has increased 93% over last year, compared to a 10% increase in our PIP e-book vendor. The amount initially budgeted was not adequate. Our users overwhelmingly tell us that they prefer having any title they see be available, however, and therefore so far we have put money where we see use and growth to the detriment of some other materials budget lines. Might we have to put further limits on what we allow to be borrowed (currently 6 titles per month)? Probably.  But there are limits on the types of physical materials than can be checked out and on the number o PIP titles a patron might have at any time, too. For our users, the honeymoon is definitely not over. Therefore it is not for us as a library, either.

As far as curation of and access to titles goes, though Rosenblatt's points that they be considered is well taken, does the CPC model necessarily change anything? Since we already lease under the PIP model, how are we currently ensuring curation? This is a serious question, but could things be any more of a mess than they are now? Efforts like the Internet Archive's Open Libraries initiative may help, and libraries should seek ways to improve what we conserve in the digital space, but expecting publishers or library e-content vendors to help in this endeavor will be bootless. And might having anytime access to backlist titles perhaps increase their use, helping to ensure they are more likely to be preserved and available in digital format than before?

Rosenblatt and Hoffelder are eminently correct to say libraries must be careful in moving forward with e-content business models.  Many of the details have yet to be seen with the new HarperCollins model for e-books. We ReadersFirst nevertheless approve of this publisher's willingness to experiment. It is a good step in what we have long advocated: a RANGE of e-content models that will foster the most use possible of the widest range of titles while assisting curation, from ownership/perpetual access to some titles down to the wide reading of today's ephemeral best seller. Give us the models. Let us count the costs and do what is best for us.   

    

An ALA Presentation by Internet Archive: "Making Your Library a Digital Library by 2020"

Brewster Kahle and Wendy Hanamura Internet Archive (IA) reported progress in the Open Libraries Project, an initiative of great interest to library e-content aficionados.

The IA currently offers three million ebooks, in addition to many other formats including audio files and television shows.

Most of the eBook titles date prior to 1923 and are in public domain, but some 540,000 titles are more recent titles and usually copyright orphaned. IA is apprehensive about the nearly century of 1923 to present, often out-of-print and difficult to find in physical format, in danger of being lost forever, and certainly not available and in way preserved digitally. Many of the these titles can still be found on library shelves, but nowhere else: even publishers often have no remaining print copies. E-book licensing and copyright restrictions and lack of library staff and funding resources mitigate against preservation and digital discovery and circulation. Enter the Open Libraries Project.

IA is looking to provide free access to 4 million impactful titles.

If a library has a physical copy of a book, IA will digitize it. Will give the book back. If a small library, and don't have resources, will build a centralized circulation to help distribute.

Partners in/supporters of the project include Digital Public Library of America (DPLA), Digital Library Federation, the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom "Our Voices" initiative, MIT Press (which is allowing digitization of their complete backlist), Boston Public Library and Houghton-Mifflin on their backlist. Houghton realizes that often only one copy of orphaned backlist titles exists--Boston Pubic. They are worried about preservation. Also worthy of mention is Delaware County Library in Ohio, which has shared its catalog to aid with discovery. Interestingly, as with many non-research libraries, fully a third of Delaware's titles were already digitized. It would seem that a the project already has a great start. Also instrumental are NewKnowledge.org and TASCHA of University of Washington.

 

How it works--and the part that makes it interesting for ReadersFirst--is as follows. Libraries may pull one copy (if they have multiples) from circulation, have IA digitize it,  have it returned and then hold it back from physical circulation, and thereafter circulate digital copies on a one circ-one user model (i.e., no multi-user access). Libraries with resources may build a digital circ manager of their own, while others will get an assist from IA to foster circ. Alternately, libraries may de-accession a title, send it to IA, and have IA maintain a sole physical copy and handle digital distribution.

 

This process is interesting from a copyright perspective as an extension of right of first sale and fair use.

Of perhaps even greater RF interest is that IA hopes, Hanamura said, to "Create a delightful reading experience across devices." They are especially interested in software reading capabilities to extend accessibility for the visually impaired and dyslexic. They wish to build interoperable cross-platform systems with library and technology vendors and partners. They already plan to make the titles accessible via the SimplyE app, and libraries that deploy that app either individually or in consortia will be able to take advantage of the titles created in the project, which will foster both ePub and PDF releases.

 

The 5400,000 in-copyright works that have been digitized and made available to borrow digitally are on the 1 user/1 circ model to suit fair use. The titles are not those currently available via licensing from vendors. The aim is not to supplant such titles but to fill in the vast number of digitally unavailable titles.

 

IA seeks help in two ways. 

 

First, they are hoping for a grant with MacArther Foundation for $100 million.  This project is currently one of eight semi-finalists. They are up against fierce competition: for example, curing river blindness. Still, the view this project as a human rights matter:  it ensures knowledge access.  They also hope to build their platform to highlight reader privacy. "Long term free public access to knowledge is vital, and is not being done by Google or Amazon," said Kahle. They will move forward even without the grant, or a part of it, but it would be most helpful.

 

To make the project viable, they are also looking for 119,000 libraries to come on board to provide content and visibility

 

The project presents many opportunities. It can vastly increase circulation of materials, making works accessible only through ILL, or, not at all, available nationally. It can provide more equitable access, more room in libraries for people, and save money in ILL expenditures and staff time. It can use technology to read improve accessibility.  It can help ensure preservation, with publishers partnering.

 

So, how can you help? You can make your library a part by having works digitized by IA and circling them electronically. IA is developing processes to identify which works they might use, so you could de-accession some titles safe in the knowledge they will be preserved by IA. You can encourage ILS vendors to make adaptations to help get the content working in systems. You can encourage readers to suggest what titles they would Iike in the library. Support for the grant is welcome and helpful. You can Tweet your support @internetarchive and #100andChange.

After experiencing the disruptions of the digitization, libraries and our partners are aggressively launching initiatives to ensure discovery, access, and preservation. We live in exciting times. The Open Libraries project has enormous potential to help libraries at little cost to us, especially as it integrates with work such as SimplyE and NISOs's efforts to create API standards. ReadersFirst endorses the project and encourages libraries to find out more. https://openlibraries.online

 

Breaking News--A Long Awaited Business Model from a Big Publisher

Thanks to RF Friend Andrew Albanese for sharing some great news,

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/74043-harpercollins-hoopla-to-offer-multi-user-e-book-access-to-libraries.html#comments

"In a major announcement ahead of this week’s 2017 ALA Annual Conference, HarperCollins has agreed to make a selection of its e-book backlist titles available to public library users on a multi-user lending model."

Yes, you read it right. Something ReadersFirst and the library community as a whole have wanted for a long time is finally happening.

"Starting in July, the publisher will make about 15,000 e-book titles available via hoopla, including works from bestselling authors like Neil Gaiman, Louise Erdrich, and Dennis Lehane. The agreement builds on a 2016 deal that made HarperCollins’ digital audiobook backlist available to library users . . . . It is an enormous step forward for library e-book lending, as HarperCollins becomes the first Big Five publisher to offer e-books to library patrons on a multi-user, on-demand model."

This is indeed welcome news! For too long, library e-book use has been stalled by a lack of flexible business models of precisely this sort. It's a win-win, offering publishers a chance for greater circulation on back list titles and libraries a chance for multi-user access. There will be less waiting for titles. Will other publishers follow? Could high demand front list titles follow? What will it ok like in library catalogs? Great questions. We can hope for continued progress. In the meantime, THANK YOU Harper-Collins! You have once again proven yourself to be willing to experiment to work with libraries for our mutual benefit.  May others follow your example.

Another Exciting E-Book Initiative

This just in from Open Libraries:

We invite you to ASK US ANYTHING--on June 15 from 10-11:30 a.m. PT via YouTubeLive--about Open Libraries, our project to bring 4 million free digital books to learners, libraries and the print disabled. We are 1 of 8 semifinalists for #100andChange--MacArthur's competition to tackle one of the world's big problems.

Help us think big! We will answer your questions, invite your ideas, and share how you or your library can become a Open Libraries partner.

Email us your questions at info@archive.org, tweet them with the #OpenLibrariesAMA or leave a comment in our blog: http://blog.archive.org/…/ama-about-openlibraries-our-prop…/

Then tune in to hear your comments and have your questions answered at our:

Live Chat via YouTube Live, Thursday, June 15 from 10-11:30 a.m. PT

Watch at OpenLibraries.online

with

Brewster Kahle, Founder and Digital Librarian

Wendy Hanamura, Director of Partnerships

John Gonzalez, Director of Engineering

Underground News: The SimplyE Web Reader is Rolled Out

As reported in the New York Times, New York Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, Queens Library, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Transit Wireless have created a subway train, complete with seats decorated as books, that allows riders to read books onboard. 

However, " . . .you don’t need to be in a library car to take advantage. When you enter a subway station, connect to the Transit Wireless WiFi network available at all underground stations. When you’ve logged on, you’ll see a prompt for SubwayLibrary.com, and — voilà — you can start browsing and downloading books, short stories, chapters and excerpts donated by publishers."

“It used to be that you were ‘unplugged’ on the subway, and even though you’re connecting to the wireless now, you’ll still have the sense of being unplugged when reading books,” said Lynn Lobash, manager of reader services for the New York Public Library. “It’s a lot different than the frantic sense of checking your email or being on Twitter.”

The story adds that "You’ll find short reads curated for the quick commutes, and long reads for the farther destinations or delayed rides. You can explore New York stories, children’s titles, young-adult novels or new releases in the 'New & Noteworthy' category."

What the story doesn't add is that this initiative is the public roll-out of the web version of the SimplyE app. Titles launch from a web browser. For librarians interested in improvements to the library e-book experience, this is welcome news indeed. The ability to launch content from a library owned and branded web page, downloading if patrons want to an app, working across vendor platforms, is a good step in simplifying the e-content experience. 

SimplyE for Consortia update and an ALA e-content calendar

Valerie Horton, CEO of MInitex, has provided an update on work on a more academic-oriented version of the SimplyE app.

A quick update on SimplyE for Consortia.  

We are deep in programming work right now.  Minitex is concentrating on adding academic and other features such as bookmarks, citations, and annotation.  After that we will start looking at different methods for supporting pdf formats. Minitex has loaded open textbooks into the app, but this function is not yet ready for testing.  We are also starting the process of setting up test installation with our partners in RAILS (IL), the Massachusetts Library System, and several public library systems in Minnesota.  We'll be back to you soon, seeking input.

In the almost year that SimplyE has been in operations at New York Public Library (NYPL), they have found that allowing librarians to select titles for the swim lanes flattens out the demand curve. This wonderful news means that NYPL can expose independent and local authors to more readers, and lower some of the pressures pushing up high hold queues.  

Brooklyn is now up on SimplyE through NYPL, and quite a few other states and consortia are near to going public.  I expect we’ll be seeing more news on implementation going live soon.

To this, please add that working with Datalogics, Califa (220 California Libraries) and Maryland are making progress on deployment and expect to have live instances launched before the end of summer.

From Michelle Bickert DPLA:

For those of you attending ALA Annual, we have a Wiki page listing meetings and sessions that may be of interest to our community. 

Link: https://digitalpubliclibraryofamerica.atlassian.net/wiki/display/EW/2017-06+Ebooks+at+ALA+Annual+2017

Library e-content continues its march to a better reader experience!

A Thoughtful Look at E-Content Business Models

Cathy Mason, Digital Downloads Administrator for Columbus Metropolitan Library (CML), has taken a thoughtful look at how she gets e-content titles. CML provides hundreds of thousands of digital tiles, and Cathy has wide experience with the advantages and limitations of current buying models.  Here are some of her thoughts:

Here are some buying models I’ve been thinking about that would help our consortium spend our money better and provide a more robust ebook collection for customers.

·         One copy/One user, or forever titles, are not the best models for an active public library.  At our library (Columbus Metropolitan Library) we want to keep things fresh and not archive hundreds of copies of any one title.  Sure we need a fair number of copies when a title first releases but couldn’t that be addressed with some OC/OU copies and a majority of metered access copies?  I’m thinking about the 80/20 rule that I’m seeing in all parts of life.  As an example, I’d like to keep 20% of my copies forever and have 80% metered for 12 months or 26 checkouts.  The goal here is to reach $1/circ. over the long haul.  If the book gets optioned for a movie then I’ll gladly buy more metered access copies to meet the temporary surge in customer demand. 

·         When it comes to holiday books I can’t justify buying anything with a 12 month meter, especially in children’s non-fiction.  This area is a low performer in ebooks for us so we’ll never buy a book that will circ maybe twice in 12 months.  The one exception to my holiday embargo is Christmas romance.  Titles in this area circulate year round.

·         12 month license for someone like Stephen King (with Scribner) or Colleen Hoover (with Simon & Schuster) doesn’t work for us.  For established authors we want to always have some copies, maybe not tons of copies but 5 OC/OU and then we can fill in with metered copies on special occasions.  I can definitely see using the 12 month model for a new author who’s just breaking out, but not tried and true authors.

·         When buying 26 or 52 checkouts, it would be fantastic if we could have the number of checkouts available simultaneously.  If we’re paying for 26 checkouts and we have 10 people on a holds list why not let them all have it at the same time?  I’ll buy more checkouts to meet demand once the initial 26 or 52 are used up.  Using them sequentially mimics physical book circulation models and doesn’t utilize the power and agility of digital content.  It isn’t useful for us to restrict use based on a model that works for physical books and lending when librarians and patrons alike know that there can be simultaneous checkouts. 

·         If a metered model has a set number of checkouts then I would like to pay around $1 per checkout or less.  There’s no guarantee that we’ll use all the checkouts but if we do then $1/checkout or less is preferred.

·         Traditional book vendors like Baker & Taylor and Ingram offer their library customers a price break on most of their books from the big 5 publishers.  Why can’t libraries get this kind of discount from the same publishers in digital format? 

·         I’ve been toying with the idea of copies changing type of meter or model after 6, 12 or 18 months.  For instance, if a title does well and is metered, be it 12 months or 26 checkouts, or whatever, it would be beneficial to be asked if I want to renew some or all of the copies as OC/OU.  Pottermore audiobooks have a 60 month meter which is fantastic but I know I’m going to buy Harry Potter forever and it would be nice to have at least some of our copies as OC/OU and be confident that we’re meeting customer demand with forever copies.

In charging libraries inflated prices publishers are limiting the growth of ebooks.  If I could spend $87 on three or four titles instead of one we could accommodate more customers.  More customers means more demand and thus more spending.  If we can engage more and more customers, ebook usage will go up and authors, libraries and publishers benefit.

Unquestionably, more flexible models for e-book and e-content acquisitions would benefit libraries and ultimately be of greater use to content providers, too. Thanks, very much, Cathy for your thoughtful look at the market.  Gentle readers, your comment comments are welcome! What do you think?  

Another Move Towards Improving E-Book Access

This just in from DPLA.  Interesting news!

This is the second in a series of posts about DPLA’s ongoing work to maximize access to ebooks. Check out the first post in this series introducing our plans and learn more about the Sloan Foundation grant funding this work.

At DPLAfest this past April, the DPLA Board of Directors approved a plan to move forward with an ebook pilot aimed at improving access to a broad selection of open and licensed ebooks through market-based methods. We at DPLA are evaluating what we could potentially do from a community and technology perspective to help libraries maximize patron access to ebooks and other e-content. Through the pilot, set to launch in early fall, DPLA will manage technology solutions for 3-5 large public libraries and consortia.

First, some background: US libraries began providing ebooks through OverDrive in 2004. Since then, library ebooks have been provided through siloed, vertically integrated systems in which users can discover and borrow books from a given vendor only in that vendor’s website and apps. In 2012, a group of frustrated library leaders mobilized to form Readers First to fight for a better user experience for their patrons. This grassroots movement has advocated with some success for more open systems and empowered libraries to demand more from e-content vendors. These innovative, library-driven efforts have also led to multiple IMLS-funded grant projects moving us closer to the vision of a national digital platform.

DPLA’s approach to help libraries maximize access to ebooks and other e-content is to work with technology providers, publishers, distributors and public libraries to offer a comprehensive technology solution managed by DPLA. The first component of the solution addresses content acquisition. The second is a curation portal that serves as a circulation manager based on the Open Publication Distribution System (OPDS). We believe helping US libraries move to OPDS-based distribution could greatly expand access for patrons. OPDS is a simple, elegant syndication format based on Atom and HTTP.  It allows libraries to use a standard protocol for the aggregation, distribution, discovery, and acquisition of electronic publications.

Our hope is this solution will enable libraries to move to an open, OPDS-based service architecture without deploying additional software or incurring costs beyond content and DRM fees. Libraries would be able to merge content from various sources, including popular publisher content and free, open content curated by DPLA and others in the community, and serve it through curated user interfaces to drive deeper discovery and thus more use of existing collections.

We will continue update you on our progress with pilot libraries, and related DPLA + Ebooks projects. We will also be sharing our vision for open access content, publisher relationships, and community engagement in future blog posts and announcements.

Questions? Email us.