The "Why" of the Boycott, Two Replies to Sargent's Visit to COSLA, and A Proposal For Macmillan

Carmi Parker, ILS administrator for the Whatcom County Library System and RF Working Group Member, has penned an explanation in PW for the library boycott of Macmillan e-books. As of this moment, she further reports, 33 libraries/systems have joined. While she is speaking only for some libraries in Washington, her reasons are likely shared by many participating libraries.

Her piece is worth a read, so just to summarize here: equity of access for readers, the need to suggest to other publishers that “windowing” is problematic and will not go without comment and bad publicity, the ability to have positive conversations with readers who are disadvantaged by Macmillan’s decision, and the need for action before ALA and other effort at legislative or legal action might be in effect. “Equal access to information regardless of ability to pay is foundational to a democratic society and is why public libraries exist . . . And we believe that a collective effort to emphasizes libraries’ considerable financial leverage is the fastest, if not the only way to take a stand for equity and restore access.”

Ms. Parker’s tone is respectful and moderate. Less congenial responses to the report of Mr. John Sargent’s visit to COSLA have come from bloggers, who “call BS” to Sargent’s claims.

In “Macmillan Can’t Adapt to the Market, So It’s Forcing Customers to Adapt to it,” Nate Hoffelder says “As with Sargent's other claims [this specifically about the claim that 8% of readers who can’t get an e-book from the library will buy one], he has provided no evidence to back up his assertion, leaving us nothing to address.” He does address Sargent’s claim that “The availability of ebooks through libraries, which may be perceived as being free, is, in Macmillan’s opinion, the major driver in the consumer decline.” Hoffelder says Macmillan is “stuck in the pre-internet era,” can’t figure out how to monetize their backlist, instituted agency pricing to bolster hard cover sales to the detriment of e-books and is getign the return that is deserved, and has flunked consumer marketing 101. In “No Time for Sargent” (a clever if dated allusion), C.E. Petit of Scrivener’s Error is even more scathing, suggesting (I’m simplifying—the piece should be read) that Macmillan’s claims about 8% are bogus and non-reproducible, that basing claims for all Macmillan titles on Tor titles is in any case faulty, that many readers who most need libraries and who cannot get titles from libraries won’t read them at all. He concludes: Macmillan is “engaging in a pollution-control analysis that includes only the cost to the factories of installing new sulfur-dioxide scrubbers on their stacks without even trying to consider the public-health benefits (and costs avoided, monetary and otherwise).”

So, we have an increasing number of libraries refraining from licensing Macmillan e-books and people assailing the logic of Macmillan’s business decisions. Is there any way to reach common ground? Perhaps not, but for the sake of getting titles to readers, I make the following proposal, but in doing so I’m not speaking for RF. I haven’t sounded out our Working Group. It’s just me. I’m sure many in the library community will disagree because they believe prices are already too high. For Macmillan, however, this is all obviously about the money and getting as much as they can, with readers buying rather than ”being trained to read for free.”

As noted in this forum before, I like having a one-copy/one-use perpetual access option. So, Mr. Sargent, from date of publication, offer a one copy/one user perpetual access. But don’t offer it at $30. Offer it at $60, one for each library. After one year, drop price to $30. Offer this option as long as you offer leases on the title.

At the same time, also from date of publication, offer metered licenses, as many as a library wants:

• First 8 weeks: 25 circs for $75. No time limit, expires only after the circ limit is reached

• At 8 weeks to one year: 25 circs at $50. No time limit

• At one year: 25 circs at $25.

Voila, sir!  No more windowing.  Less backlash. Your price is high in that 8 weeks you claim we are costing you money—equal to what you’d get from consumer sales—but lower as time goes on and (by your own logic) the tiles are worth less. You monetize your backlist. You become the company that listened, represented your authors, but did not disadvantage library readers.

My friends in libraries are bound to object. These initial prices are high. On high-demand titles, a 25 circ period (chosen as an even number and not some max-circ-per-year silliness) would require frequent re-licensing. But are we glad Macmillan isn’t windowing?  We’d get better much prices eventually. We’d have an option to keep titles perpetually, if we want it. Above all, we don’t have any more “exploding licenses”--we know what our cost per circ will be. Over time, I think we’d see lots of efficiency from buying only when we need to rather than seeing titles simply disappear at the end of a two year span.

Now, Mr. Sargent, maybe you’ll give us a bit of a break. How about $2.50 per title initially, and not $3.00, knowing that we help readers discover your authors? And while we’re at it, maybe in the future offering a pay-per-use or subscription on your back list? We can negotiate. Let’s talk.

I’m happy pointing people to a boycott, and RF is not restricted from advocating for it (as the ALA is), but if we could meet somewhere fair to you and fair to our readers, wouldn’t it be better than the bad publicity, rancor, and name-calling? Mr. Sargent, be the company that cares for readers. We know its all about the money, but can we do better together?

A COSLA Press Release on Macmillan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 6, 2019

Contact:               Timothy Cherubini, Executive Director
                                tcherubini@cosla.org
                                859 514 9826

 Chief Officers of State Library Agencies seek dialogue with Macmillan Publishers on eBook Sales

Discussion reveals areas of common concern and diverging perspectives.

Hartford, Connecticut – At the invitation of Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA), Macmillan Publishers CEO John Sargent joined several State Librarians for dialogue around the company’s new pricing and availability policy for library eBook purchasing.  COSLA, whose members include all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 3 territories, expressed concerns about the recent policy change which the organization’s members view as detrimental to the needs of the library-using public nationwide.  A major purpose behind the meeting was to understand Macmillan’s decision better, including achieving an understanding of how Macmillan arrived at their model. 

 Mr. Sargent shared with COSLA Macmillan’s concern that eBook sales are rising in public libraries but declining with consumers.  He likened the eBook marketplace to that for major motion pictures in that new releases have the greatest value in their first few weeks and their initial release should allow for the greatest return on both creative and business investment.  The availability of eBooks through libraries, which may be perceived as being “free,” is in Macmillan’s opinion the major driver in the consumer decline.

“We disagree with the premise that eBook availability through libraries negatively impacts sales of new release best seller sales to any significant extent,” said Cindy Aden, chair of COSLA’s eBook engagement group and Washington State Librarian.  “Libraries pay higher prices for eBooks and we question the logic that a publisher would achieve significant revenue from restricting sales to libraries.  In our experience, few readers faced with wait times for a new release would choose to purchase the book directly instead of waiting, even if those wait times are significant.”   Mr. Sargent on the other hand told COSLA that based on anecdotal data, they believe that if library users cannot gain access to a new eBook from their library, 8 percent of those waiting will likely buy the eBook

 “Typical eBook loan periods are 2 – 3 weeks,” noted COSLA President and Hawaii State Librarian Stacey Aldrich.  “It is unlikely that a single eBook purchased by a library at 3 or 4 times the cost of a consumer book would circulate more than 2.5 times in the first 8 weeks, so the drain on potential buyers is insignificant during the eBooks’ most valuable selling period.”

 Contrary to the assumption stated by Mr. Sargent that availability through libraries negatively impacts book sales, COSLA believes that library availability builds readership, increases awareness of authors, publishers, booksellers and the entire ecosystem, thereby positively impacting sales.  Libraries serve segments of communities that for various reasons are not able to purchase eBooks.  Publishers and librarians have engaged frequently over many years on issues of pricing, availability and access of eBooks in libraries.  The terms now in place for Macmillan imprints add to an already difficult set of issues. 

Mr. Sargent repeated another oft-stated claim that eBook availability through libraries devalues works. COSLA board members had various responses to this concern. COSLA Vice President and Montana State Librarian Jennie Stapp made the point that library users do value their books, even if accessed via their library, as evidenced by the valuable time they devote to reading them. 

COSLA members also emphasized the case that libraries provide “early adopter” readers who can talk about a new book to others and encourage higher readership. Keeping new books out of a library may negatively impact Macmillan authors whose books won’t be shared, and whose readers will find other authors while waiting, possibly not returning to those Macmillan authors immediately or at all.

Mr. Sargent appeared eager to describe the problem from his perspective and open to considering alternative models presented by others, acknowledging that the current embargo model may not be the “right” model.  He expressed confidence in that model however, and determination to find out if it will drive eBook sales to consumers.

 COSLA and Mr. Sargent have agreed to explore  eBook pricing models and to continue to try to find ways to understand the perceived problem and to emphasize the importance of libraries to the overall book ecosystem. All agreed that better data will help the conversation.  Meanwhile libraries across the country are responding by opting not to purchase new Macmillan eBook titles, all eBook titles or even all Macmillan books, hoping to demonstrate to Macmillan that libraries are a significant part of his bottom line and should be seen as a partner in promoting books, authors and reading.

About the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA):  COSLA is an independent organization of the chief officers of state and territorial agencies designated as the state library administrative agency and responsible for statewide library development. Its purpose is to provide leadership on issues of common concern and national interest; to further state library agency relationships with federal government and national organizations; and to initiate cooperative action for the improvement of library services to the people of the United States.

Color me cynical, but I’m not sure how Macmillan can say the new model might not be “right” and yet “express confidence in the model.” it’s nice to see dialog, but I don’t expect Macmillan to back away from the stand without much more pressure, and probably not even then. It is time to find other e-book sources. Is it time to stop promoting all Macmillan titles, period?  

One Perspective on a COSLA/Macmillan Meeting

Texas State Library and Archives Commission Director Mark Smith was one of ten COSLA representatives in a meeting with Macmillan CEO John Sargent yesterday.

The meeting lasted 2.5 hours. In it, Mr. Sargent claimed one thing I haven’t seen so far: “the Macmillan policy arose from his belief that the amount that librarians are spending on e-books is ever escalating as they try to keep up with demand for front-list (bestseller) titles, allowing no funds to purchase mid-list titles.” Here, I would like to say that offering a one copy/one user perpetual may actually help and would thank Macmillan for it—if they weren’t yanking it off the table after 8 weeks. Jeez, can’t you just make it available perpetually on “mid-list titles”? We could figure out our license options. It isn’t hard.

Sargent’s other claims—that our circulation is cutting into publisher/author revenue, and his policy will help small and even large libraries (and authors), with the only alternative being price increases—are nothing new.

The COSLA representatives begged to disagree:

While it is undeniable that the cost of e-books is untenable, that use is tending to increase, and that library budgets are pushed to the max, we expressed skepticism that a reader who cannot borrow a copy of a library e-book will purchase the item. We also doubted the assumption of an inverse correlation between library circulation and publisher revenue. We questioned the data upon which Macmillan’s decisions have been based. And we noted that many libraries are going to discontinue purchasing materials from Macmillan, though Mr. Sargent seems confident that the impact of the boycotts will be offset by greater revenues to authors and publishers. He commented that he had heard from few authors with concerns about the new policy.

Mr.Smith’s final three paragraphs on taking some stand so that other publishers will take notice, discovering writers other than the best-sellers, and disrupting our e-book buying models are cogent, clear, and worth a read. Thank you, sir—a tip of the hat to you! May others hear and act on your words.

Sargent Letter: Baloney Parts/Snub Panned

Macmillan CEO John Sargent’s Open Letter to Librarians of October 30 said “we are great believers in libraries,” explained that the license terms changes effective November 1 were “well considered and deeply discussed with over 35 library systems, with your suppliers, and with the ALA,” and went on to claim that “we are trying to balance the needs of the system in a new and complex world {and] believe windowing for eight weeks is the best way to do that.”

Librarians have been distinctly (and rightly) underwhelmed.

Andrew Albanese has pointed out that the ALA immediately described “glaring inaccuracies” and said the letter “misrepresents ALA’s longstanding and good-faith efforts to equitably balance the rights and privileges of readers, libraries, authors, and publishers.” Specifically, ALA’s Alan Inouye avers that “ALA (and all the library systems we are aware of) has consistently opposed any effort to delay or deny library access to digital content”; .”ALA has frequently requested but never received data or analysis that demonstrates that library lending undermines book sales. It is simply false to state otherwise”; “With contracts limiting library lending to one eBook per reader at a time, we can assure Macmillan there is plenty of ‘friction’ in our current system”; “Restricting access to authors’ works through libraries hurts discovery, reading choice, literacy, and the simple love of reading. . . . An embargo is the wrong answer to an unsubstantiated problem that no other major publisher seems to face.”

Sargent’s claim of library eBooks being frictionless has been assailed form outside libraries as well, with Nate Hoffelder asserting (again) ”the idea that only library ebook usage can hurt retail ebook sales doesn't really make sense given what we know about library patron behavior. To put it simply, when patrons browse libraries, we are looking for availability, not a specific format. Make the ebook more difficult to access, something the publishers have been doing for the past 8 years, and we'll check out the print book instead.” He adds that “Macmillan has poor ebook sales because in early 2010 they adopted a policy of discouraging ebook sales in favor of print sales. To pretend that Macmillan's poor ebook sales are a result of anything other than Macmillan's own policies shows a basic lack of awareness of consumer behavior, or a willingness to ignore the facts and lie.”

Sargent’s points sometimes defy logic. He says “We believe the very rapid increase in the reading of borrowed e-books decreases the perceived economic value of a book.” Really? And years of borrowing print in libraries, with (in large systems) thousands of people a waiting list, somehow didn’t decrease the perceived value? Let’s be honest. Mr. Sargent, it’s not libraries. It’s the format and it’s your individual prices. Many people just don’t want to pay $14,99 or even $12.99 for an ebook. Look at the huge growth of indie and small press ebook titles. What you want is to maintain the profitability of the hardback market, for the benefit of super best-selling authors, often at the expense of “mid-list” authors.

Here’s another: “We looked at . . . the perceived value of a book upon publication (when its value is highest).” If that is the case, why give libraries one copy for the first 8 weeks at half price? If that’s when the book is most valuable, why not double the price? Why not drop prices on all ebook titles over 8 weeks, since their value, like some new car driven off the lot, is no longer as high? It would seem Macmillan would like to use libraries’ power to foster discovery while limiting supply, trying to induce library readers to jump into purchasing.

Sargent’s October 30 open letter makes no different points than his initial announcement in July. He promises “with talking with many of you in the weeks and months ahead as we all begin to understand the effects of our new policy.” Has any talking so far done any good? Don’t expect any changes at Macmillan. They are a business. They will do what they think is right for their bottom line. And they will make noises about listening and count on libraries finally just giving up. Beneath the politeness and voiced support for libraries, see the snub. It’s a shame in a way. If at day of title publication they had had offered each library a single one copy/one user perpetual license, even at $75, and unlimited two-year (but drop the 52 circs, which we practically never see) licenses ranging from $35 to $70, they could perhaps have increased their library revenue, allowed even greater discovery of the writers, and maybe increased retail sales as well as people, having seen news of a title at the library, decided they didn’t want to wait for a library copy or, having sampled a book through us, decided they want to own it. Aren’t we and Macmillan both going to gain from increasing reading in a time when reading itself seems on a decline?

Instead, the best option seems to be joining the increasing number of libraries that are not going to get embargoed Macmillan titles. Not after 8 weeks. Not at all. Thank you to Columbus Metropolitan Library CEO Patrick Losinski, who said it well: “Columbus Metropolitan Library’s suspension of the purchasing of new Macmillan eBooks is a stand against limiting equal access to our customers,” said Patrick Losinski, CML CEO. “By limiting the number of copies our library can purchase, Macmillan is allowing only a certain segment of our society to access digital content in a timely manner – those who can pay for it themselves. And that’s unacceptable in a democratic society.” The RF Working group encourages libraries to join!

Now is the time for legislative and perhaps legal action. But while we work on that, let’s build ebook collections of works of the many talented newcomers as well as relying on the best sellers and authors backed buy the Big 5. There’s a wealth waiting to be discovered. books may never give us the return on investment (use per $ spent) that print does—but we can get closer than at least $6.07 for the average Macmillan title.

Breaking News: ALA Press Release, "ALA Denounces Amazon, Macmillan in Response to Congressional Inquiry on Competition in Digital Markets"

The American Library Association has shared a press release, which RF quotes in full below. The report the press release references may be found here. It is a powerful statement of the rights of library readers in an increasingly restrictive marketplace, addressing issues in e-books, streaming content, and academic content, including textbooks. RF thanks Mr. Alan Inouye of ALA’s Washington office for sharing this information.

ALA Denounces Amazon, Macmillan in Response to Congressional Inquiry on Competition in Digital Markets

Report Cites Abusive Pricing, Denial and Delay of Sales to Libraries by Major Publishers

Release Embargoed until Thursday, October 24, 2019, 12:01 a.m. (Eastern)

WASHINGTON – Current practices by content publishers and distributors in digital markets limit libraries’ ability to deliver core services, according to a new report publicly released today by the American Library Association (ALA). Submitted in response to an inquiry from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, ALA’s report underscores practices by companies like Amazon and Macmillan Publishers that threaten Americans’ right to read what and how they choose and imperil other fundamental First Amendment freedoms. The report urges lawmakers to curb anti-competitive practices of digital market actors.

 “By outright denying or delaying library access to digital content, dominant actors in digital markets endanger America’s competitiveness and our nation’s cultural heritage,” said ALA President Wanda Brown. “Everyone who reads, writes, performs or sells creative works is harmed when libraries are unable to purchase and deliver content for all in our communities.”

“ALA does not take this issue lightly,” said Alan Inouye, ALA senior director of public policy and government relations. “When Amazon – the world’s fifth largest publisher of e-books – refuses to sell to libraries, or when a Big 5 publisher like Macmillan places an eight-week embargo on e-book sales to America’s libraries, we believe it is time to take legislative action.”

 The report addresses publishers’ abusive pricing and restrictive licensing terms for libraries. Over the past 10 years, libraries have spent more than $40 billion acquiring e-books as well as streamed music and audiovisual content from publishers. For popular e-book titles libraries pay up to five times the price an individual consumer pays and, unlike the individual, libraries typically have access to an e-book title for only two years.

 Restrictive license terms for streamed music and audiovisual content present libraries with similar access challenges. Streaming licenses are typically constrained to personal use and do not permit library lending or preservation.

 “In 100 years, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Spotify and other companies distributing streamed content may be out of business or no longer maintaining their older works,” the report states. “The only way to ensure the availability of this content to future generations of researchers, students and artists is for libraries to have the right to preserve it.”

 The report also notes the market for libraries that purchase academic and research content is particularly dismal. Like many other publications, scholarly journals essential for research have largely transitioned to digital formats over the past 25 years. At the same time, the market for scholarly journals has seen tremendous consolidation. In the college textbook market, three companies—Pearson, Cengage and McGraw-Hill—account for 85 percent of the industry. Furthermore, despite the cost improvements digital technology affords, textbook prices have risen three times the rate of inflation over the past two decades. Plans to merge Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education will create even further industry concentration, says ALA.

 The report’s release comes on the heels of ALA’s #eBooksForAll campaign in protest of Macmillan Publishers’ plan to restrict sales to libraries. Beginning November 1, 2019, libraries of all sizes will be limited to purchasing one copy of a newly published e-book title and must wait eight weeks to buy additional copies. The embargo has outraged library advocates across North America, generating local and national media coverage.

 “Equitable access to information and creative works is central to the mission of libraries and essential for our nation’s readers and learners,” said Brown. “Macmillan’s library e-book embargo is just the most recent attack on digital inclusion.”

As for ALA’s next steps, Inouye stated, “Beginning next week, ALA and our members in targeted congressional districts will engage legislators on the substance of our report. When librarians and community leaders tell Antitrust Subcommittee members how unfair digital market practices impact their constituents, Congress will listen.”

“ALA will continue to pursue legislative, advocacy and legal options to ensure everyone in our communities has access to the creative content for which libraries already pay a very high price. We will not stand down.”

Maryland Libraries Strike Back and Other Macmillan news

An article appeared in today’s Baltimore Sun setting out the Maryland Library Association and many local systems’ concerns about the upcoming changes in Macmillan’s licensing terms. Those concerns have also been stated elsewhere, but it is gratifying to see yet more heavily used and prestigious libraries bring this matter to public attention. Thanks, Maryland Library Association and Maryland libraries!

Alan Inouye continues to monitor developments and has shared several recent updates:

 There has been a lot of activity this week on the public campaign front. There was an amazing segment on CBS in NYC yesterday; check it out:

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/10/18/publisher-looks-to-limit-libraries-collection-of-new-e-books-for-loan-to-readers/

We also launched our campaign at the Frankfurt Book Fair. We began on Monday with an email blast that Publishers Weekly sent to all of its subscribers. Within an hour, we heard from Macmillan's president that their position is unchanged and they are not inclined to adopt the joint committee that we proposed but are eager to meet and further discuss. He promised to get back to Sari and me to talk about possibilities in New York or elsewhere.

 The Frankfurt campaign continued, with a daily full-page ad in the show daily; here is day 3:

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1185121973778681856

We also conducted a social media campaign targeted to the Fair and specifically to the Fair site (i.e., geographic targeting).

 There were many articles and op-eds this week--so many that I haven't yet been able to read all of them. Some notable things close to home include news about King County Library System published in Publishers Weekly; an article by Sari Feldman published by IFLA; and article in Library Journal with liberal contributions from me:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/81475-this-major-public-library-system-will-boycott-macmillan-e-books-will-others-follow.html

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1184637197833658368

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1184234339862798337

Hopefully I'll sort through the various articles, a couple of other TV segments, op-eds, and other items by the end of the weekend. I've posted a number of them on my Twitter account (@AlanSInouye).

There are some hints of related action in Washington D.C. Might some in Congress be considering national legislative action in aid of libraries? Let’s hope so! Details may be available within a few weeks. We’ll post when we know more.

An Interview with Sari Feldman

ALA Senior Policy Fellow Sari Feldman has spoken with IFLA about “E-Lending, Embargoes and Equitable Access.” She is, as usual, eloquent.

After explaining Macmillans’ new licensing model and Blackstone’s embargo and suggesting other Big 5 publisher’s don’t look likely to follow these two, Ms. Feldman sets out the impact of limiting access to library readers: “Limiting access to new titles for libraries means limiting access for readers most dependent on libraries, including people with the fewest resources to purchase new eBoooks on demand, people with disabilities, students and researchers needing easy access to review content from a variety of sources, and readers with limited access to library locations.”

She avers that no data supports Macmillan’s decision and points how the publishers is ignoring how libraries promote discovery of authors and reading. “Libraries are critical to building readership at a time when reading is on the decline in the US. Libraries promote literacy and reading for all ages. Readers are attracted to eBooks and if libraries cannot get the content in the quantity needed to satisfy readers, excessive wait time will suppress discovery and interest in eBooks.”

She continue by describing how libraries are essential in the e-book market ecosystem: “Libraries are critical to building and sustaining readership, creating discovery of new and mid-list authors, and providing equitable access to readers most dependent on libraries,” with librarians having a crucial role.

In a hopeful conclusion, Ms. Feldman adds that the “good will” between libraries and publishers will result in beneficial change, leading to “new business models” that balance the interests of authors, publishers, and libraries, creating growth in the e-book industry.

RF hopes Ms. Feldman’s optimism is justified. Reading as a pastime is in decline, while Amazon, hardly dependent upon readers, bulks up its already large amount of exclusive content. We have every reason to join forces to promote reading and increase access. Will the Big 5 choose to work with libraries or silo themselves for short-term increased profit but long-term ultimate decline in revenue and, alas, reading?

Thank you, Maryland Library Association!

The following is from MLA President Andrea Berstler. May other state associations follow suit, if they haven’t already!

On October 10, 2019, the Maryland Library Association Executive Board passed the following resolution in response to Macmillan’s proposed changes for how they will and will not sell eBooks to libraries. This policy would significantly limit access to eBooks for communities across the country. By limiting the purchase of eBooks for libraries to one copy for the first 8 weeks, Macmillian demonstrates that its corporate priorities are not to cultivate readers and promote reading, but to take any actions they deem necessary to promote their bottom line. This shortsighted strategy is driven by the unsubstantiated belief “that library lending was cannibalizing sales”, as stated by Macmillan CEO John Sargent.

Should this new practice be instituted, it would allow one copy to be purchased for the entire Maryland Digital eLibrary Consortium. A recently proposed amendment to this would allow each county to purchase only one additional copy during the first 8 weeks following a title’s release. This would still keep each county library from being able to come close to meeting the needs of their community. Print copies would not be subjected to this limitation.

The Executive Board of the Maryland Library Association believe that this choice by Macmillan Publishers directly affects the library’s ability to provide equal access to all Maryland citizens. Additional information and updates on this situation can be found on the ALA website - ebooksforall.org and http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2019/09/ala-launches-national-campaign-against-e-book-embargo . MLA encourages libraries, library staff and private citizens to express their opposition to this and any similar restrictive policies by using ALA’s #ebooksforall campaign and other advocacy channels.

Sincerely,

Andrea

Andrea Berstler

President, Maryland Library Association

A Resolution on Ebook Sales Restrictions

Maryland Library Association

WHEREAS, Maryland’s public libraries currently serve more than 3,600,000 cardholders; and

WHEREAS, the continued commitment to a high quality of services and ease of access places Maryland as a leader for libraries nationwide; and

WHEREAS, millions of Marylanders, including students, now use digital content as their preferred or only access to books, music, and movies; and

WHEREAS, information and content must be accessible to all people, in all available formats, regardless of their personal income or physical ability or reading ability; and

WHEREAS, Marylanders downloaded more than 3,690,000 eBooks and eAudiobooks in 2018 from public libraries across the state; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. publishing industry earned $25.83 billion in revenue in 2018, with downloaded audio experiencing 28.7% growth over 2017; and

WHEREAS, major publisher Macmillian, has recently announced their intention to implement restrictive purchasing policies for eBooks that directly and severely impact the ability of Maryland’s public libraries to provide equality of access to materials and information by requiring all public libraries to share a single digital copy among 6 million citizens.

WHEREAS, Macmillian CEO John Sargent accuses libraries of “cannibalizing” sales and actively “marketing… to turn purchasers into borrowers.”

WHEREAS, taxpayer supported public libraries spent millions of dollars in 2018 on eBooks and eAudiobooks; and

WHEREAS, these new policies place a significant and undue burden on both institutions and individuals, while further broadening the digital divide between those who can and those who cannot afford digital access.

WHEREAS, these arbitrary limitations make it impossible for libraries to fulfill their central mission of ensuring equal access to information for all, regardless of socioeconomic status; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED on this day October 10, 2019, that we, the members of the Maryland Library Association, call upon publishers, specifically Macmillan, to reconsider the announced restrictive and onerous policies and engage in a meaningful and direct dialogue with libraries, library consortia, library associations, authors, and other relevant stakeholders for the purpose of creating new policies that ensure equitable access to all of Maryland’s citizens.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we support the American Library Association’s position of opposition of any sales model or policy that imposes arbitrary limitations that undermine libraries’ abilities to serve their communities.

Three Updates on the Macmillan Embargo

As the start date for Macmillan’s changed library e-book licensing model looms, the library community continues to respond.

Stacey Aldrich, State Librarian for Hawaii and President of Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA) has written Macmillan CEO John Sargent a letter, explaining that COSLA” would like to engage with you more deeply on this topic.” The letter invites Mr. Sargent to the COSLA Annual meeting in early November to “talk about what is possible, and to help us better understand how you have determined this new model is the best for you as a publisher, but also for your key stakeholders: libraries, authors and readers.”

Aldrich makes several points:

The transition to digital content has been challenging at times for all, but throughout publishers and libraries have maintained a high level of respect for each other’s strengths and values, and ultimately a shared vision of a highly literate and engaged public for which each of us plays an important role.

Research has proven time and again that people who borrow books, buy books, and libraries serve as the primary way people are introduced to new titles and authors. Limiting libraries is a flawed marketing strategy and certainly not positive PR for a publisher held in such high national esteem with such a long history of promoting authors and delighting readers.

 We are also beholden to the community of readers. They want to know why there are not enough e-copies available of books, and we again must explain the model. Despite our explanations, which include rationale from the publisher perspective, funders and readers can make little sense of the situation.

Readers want choice of formats to support their reading habits. Our public libraries are buying more copies than ever to satisfy this desire and are paying more to do it. The cost of a single title with varying formats (print, electronic, audio) can be upwards of $140 initially, with additional investment required as various lending model terms kick in. That initial investment in a single title can easily balloon to $200 and more over time. This model is not sustainable.

COSLA understands that there are challenges for thinking about business models in the 21st century, and we also believe there are better ways than squeezing public libraries out of access for their communities.

RF hopes that Mr. Sargent will accept the invitation and engage in productive dialog. But we aren’t hoping our breath.

While dialog is perhaps not a carrot, at least one large library has decided to apply the stick. Lisa Rosenblum of King County has sent a message to Urban Library Council directors announcing a boycott of Macmillan.

Despite months of discussion and advocacy, Macmillan continues its position to embargo multiple copies of ebooks.

Therefore, effective November 1st, KCLS will no longer purchase ebooks from Macmillan. Instead we will divert our ebook funds to those publishers who are willing to sell to us.

We encourage all public libraries to join us. We know there are many opinions among public library staff of why this a good and not so good idea. So I offer you two reasons why we have decided to go this route. One is pragmatic, the other is principled.

We have pledged to our readers that we will limit wait time for any one title to around 3 months. Not allowing us to purchase multiple copies of an ebook for two months artificially lengthens the queue, triggering more of the same title to be purchased than would have occurred if we had been allowed to buy for the first two months. With an ever increasing demand to buy a wide variety of digital titles we do not think this is the best use of public funds. For those who are worried about access to their materials, we will continue to buy good old fashioned print copies of Macmillan titles.

The 2nd speaks to the core philosophy we all adopted almost 30 years ago, to create timely access to customer driven collections. We do not want other publishers to follow the example of Macmillan and embargo books. To do so profoundly changes the public library.

I think Kent Oliver recently said it best, “Most troubling of all is the indirect message this embargo sends, which is only those who are able and willing to pay for literature and information deserve to have access to it as soon as it is available, that philosophy goes against everything we stand for”

We hope you will join KCLS. The more of us who do, the stronger the message to all of our publishers.

Librarians will always feel an inner emptiness when not providing titles in a timely fashion in our community members format of choice, and no doubt this decision is not easily reached. Some might question it as playing directly into Macmillan’s hands, forcing digital readers to buy if they want access. RF’s view is that, while perhaps only legislative and legal action may level the field for library readers, this boycott is necessary and well-deserved. We encourage libraries to join ranks and stand with King County.

This brings us to our third news item: the ALA has announced that over 100,000 readers have joined #eBooksForAll campaign against the planned embargo. Have you signed yet? If not, please do!

"The CASE Act's flaws threaten free speech and Congress must fix them"

How nice to have an opportunity to relay news of library interest unrelated to publishers’ license terms!

In an opinion piece in The Hill, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane argues for changes in a proposed piece of legislation:

Congress is currently considering legislation that would allow copyright holders to bring smaller cases defending their works from copyright infringers without some of the prohibitive costs of going to federal court. It’s a smart idea that many in the creative community have made clear is long overdue. At the ACLU, we agree. However, the specific legislation Congress has drawn up to achieve this – the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) -- has significant design flaws that undermine free speech online and our due process rights. We’re urging lawmakers to make some changes

Ruane explains that the law would create a board with too much power:

The current proposal creates a new government body, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) . . . to resolve certain copyright claims and counterclaims. As currently constructed, CCB would have the last and final word for nearly all cases and neither the copyright holder nor the alleged infringer could appeal the board’s decision in court, except in very limited circumstances. . . . Individuals fairly using copyrighted work, or those using it unknowingly — like kids posting videos of themselves on YouTube dancing to the latest Cardi B song — could be forced to pay up to $30,000 for those mistakes.

Ruane documents how the DCMA has in many cases been used improperly to censor speech. “In the case of the DMCA, alleged misuse means censorship. But the legislation currently under consideration increases the stakes. Speech alleged to be infringing wouldn’t just be censored — it could result in a $30,000 penalty. That’s enough to bankrupt the average American household.”

RF cheers on the ACLU’s efforts to change in the legislation. Libraries wouldn’t likely be affected often, though it is not impossible that some social media efforts might inadvertently be. But it is a fundamental library value to allow for as much speech as possible that does not infringe. Libraries should support this ACLU effort. Thank you, Ms. Ruane!