PM Press Sells Ebooks to the Internet Archive for CDL

The Internet Archive has tweeted and posted on its blog that PM Press is selling its books to the Internet Archive to circulate through Controlled Digital Lending.

Like any commercial publisher, Ramsey Kanaan wants to make money and have as many people as possible read his books. But he says his company, PM Press, can do both by selling his books to the public and to libraries for lending – either in print or digitally.

While most publishers only license ebooks to libraries, PM Press has donated and sold both print and ebook versions of its titles to the Internet Archive to use in its Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) program. By owning the copies, the Internet Archive ensures that the press’s collection of publications is available to the public and preserved.

“We’re not above profit making. It’s with sales that we pay our salaries.  Nevertheless, the reason we are also doing this is we actually believe in the information we are selling and we want to make it accessible,” says Kanaan.  “We want our books to be in every library.”

RF says a big thanks to PM Press. You have it right: libraries help people discover and, yes, buy your works.

We do take slight issue, however, with the IA Tweet.

it says “This shouldn't be news but it is. @PMPressOrg is actually selling its ebooks to @InternetArchive so we can loan them out, one copy at a time thru #ControlledDigitalLending. Most publishers make libraries lease ebooks, like a car. So buying ebooks? [Thumbs up] http://blog.archive.org/2020/09/21/pm-press-sells-ebooks-to-internet-archive-we-want-our-books-to-be-in-every-library/

Of course, libraries have it far worse than car shoppers.

With a car lease, at least we have the option of buying the car (admittedly at stupid prices) when the lease ends.

Imagine if car shoppers were told, “You can’t buy OUR car but you can lease it for 2 years. And, oh, if you drive it more than 24,000 miles in the two years, we’ll take it away.  And no, at the end of two years, you can’t buy it.  Only leases here.  You’ll have to lease it again for the same price for another two years if you want it when this lease ends.”

License terms that only make PM Press’ use of a perpetual license-or sale—all the more praiseworthy.

Big 5, bring back the perpetual license! We can talk money, but your current restrictive license is wrong.

Alan Inouye's Updates from 9/29/2020

Thank you to Mr. Inouye for following library digital content news!

Report:  Ebook Collection Development in Academic Libraries: Examining Preference, Management, and Purchasing Patterns -- from Choice, ACRL. www.choice360.org/research/...

This Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law will hold a hearing on "Proposals to Strengthen the Antitrust Laws and Restore Competition Online."

judiciary.house.gov/calendar/... [This one could be of great interest to librarians—let’s hope it might strike a blow against providers’ excusive content.]

Recent article in New York Times includes a quote from Amazon on library eBook lending

www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/business/...

Roundup on the departure of John Sargent as CEO of Macmillan Publishers

www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/books/...

fortune.com/2020/09/18/...

www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/...

 And on Macmillan Publishers, the company

www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/...

www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/...

ReadersFirst takes this opportunity to wish Mr. Sargent well. The library ebook statements he made and the licensing/pricing he advocated were often bad indeed for us, but our opposition was never anything personal. Fare the well!

The CFE Calls Out Zoom and YouTube for Censoring Academic Content

Yesterday, the Centre for Free Expression issued a statement of concern about Zoom and YouTube: “When Zoom and YouTube blocked a San Francisco State University [virtual] academic panel discussion on September 23, 2020, they forced to the public eye the dangers of placing content regulation in the hands of tech companies. While the issues presented for discussion in the panel were controversial and many would consider them extreme, we believe that ideas and people must be heard before we can understand them and decide whether we agree or disagree with them. Only by protecting the free exchange of ideas and engaging in critical discussion and debate is social change made possible.”

Let’s admit upfront that the discussion was controversial, as Inside Higher Ed (IHE) has documented: it was “a virtual roundtable discussion on Palestinian rights called ‘Whose Narratives? Gender, Justice and Resistance: A Conversation with Leila Khaled’.” Khaled was involved with a plane hijacking in 1969 and has said “When you defend humanity, you use all the means at your disposal. Some use words, some use arms and some use politics. Some use negotiations. I chose arms and I believe that taking up arms is one of the main tools to solve this conflict in the interest of the oppressed and not the oppressors.” IHE notes “For obvious reasons, Khaled remains controversial: she was banned from entering several countries, including Italy, in 2017, on the grounds that she is a member of terrorist organization. Khaled remains a member of the Popular Front militant group, which the U.S., among other countries, has designated a terrorist organization.”

Facing pressure to cancel the event, San Francisco State remained firmly committed to free discourse. Zoom and YouTube, not so much so. Zoom pulled the plug the day before the event. YouTube started streaming the event but cut it after 20 minutes, with Facebook all promotional materials for good measure. Both cited their policies: {Zoom] “Terms of Service, including those related to user compliance with applicable U.S. export control, sanctions and anti-terrorism laws,” and [YouTube] “content featuring or posted by members of violent criminal organizations, specifically ‘content praising or justifying violent acts carried out by violent criminal or terrorist organizations’." ​

Zoom is a private company and does not have to support public expression of ideas. One wonders how frequently, however, they monitor and shut down conversations. YouTube and Facebook have some nerve banning anything when a search reveals content that certainly discusses views justifying violent or terrorist acts, and in the latter case private groups abound advocating both. Try searching “Proud Boys” sometime.

When faced with a legitimate academic panel that presented a controversial speaker within a context that may have led people to reject her views, all three have clearly knuckled under to pressure from people opposed to the speaker.

The Centre for Free Expression and San Francisco State have taken the principled stand to “call on online technology providers to acknowledge civil liberties and human rights; to leave decisions about what content should be discussed in the hands of the universities, schools, and libraries that use their services; and to recognize that censoring events based on the identity and history of individuals runs the risk of impeding movements for social change at a time when society is calling out for transformation.”

RF agrees, wishes it might be so, and calls upon librarians to continue to support free expression and intellectual freedom, allowing libraries and universities to shape their own programming without Tech Company censorship. Realistically, though, let’s be honest: the integrity of content will forever be imperiled if put on big tech platforms, and libraries and universities should be ready to host and promulgate their own content if they want it to be free, even if that means sacrificing some global reach.

Alan Inouye's ALA Public Policy & Advocacy Update, September 19

Thank you to Mr. Inouye for keeping librarians informed on ALA advocacy and news:

ALA POLICY & ADVOCACY UPDATES

Upcoming:  Our staffer Marijke Visser will be a panelist at the upcoming National Tribal Broadband Summit hosted by the U.S. Department of the Interior (in collaboration with USDA and IMLS). Panel on Wednesday:  Community Connectors: Tribal Libraries Make Broadband Work 

https://www.doi.gov/tribalbroadband

Upcoming:  CopyTalk webinar--"Fair Use as Cultural Appropriation." Speaker will be Dr. Trevor Reed, associate professor of law at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. October 1, 2020 at 2pm Eastern/11am Pacific.

https://ala-events.zoom.us/j/92413260126?pwd=aUZESE5YcU5Wd25kK1NRUGFuQmp4UT09  (passcode 530231).

ALA submits reply comments to the FCC in agreement with CDT opposing the NTIA petition for a rulemaking on Sec. 230 of the Communications Act.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10915052046779/Am%20Library%20Assn%20comment%20on%20FCC%20Sec%20230%20rulemaking%202020-09-15.pdf

ALA releases new report on tribal broadband

ALA news release: http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2020/09/tribal-libraries-partners-leverage-federal-e-rate-deliver-high-speed 

Rep. Ben Ray Lujan references report and introduces into the record. Video clip.

https://twitter.com/LibraryPolicy/status/1306668767565447174

Article on the report that features ALA staffer Marijke Visser:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/libraries-municipal-fiber-broadband-new-mexico-native-reservation/?itm_medium=topic&itm_source=2&itm_content=1x0&itm_term=2356592

ALA releases new report on the formerly incarcerated and libraries

https://twitter.com/ALALibrary/status/1306010410630479872

http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2020/09/new-ala-report-highlights-how-library-services-aid-formerly-incarcerated

The FCC recognizes America's libraries for heightened efforts to close digital divide during the pandemic

https://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-starks-announces-2020-doer-honorees

http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2020/09/america-s-libraries-honored-fcc-inaugural-doer-award

ALA submitted comments to the FCC on the Eligible Services List for the E-rate program

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1304345741134041091

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10904134405716/ALA%20E-rate%20ESL%20Reply%20Comments%2009042020.pdf

ALA files comments with FCC on broadband mapping. We agree with SHLB and ADTRAN that data collection should explicitly include community anchor institutions. WC Dockets 19-195 & 11-10.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10917232133257/ALA%20Mapping%20Reply%20Comments%2009172020.pdf

ALA supports the BRIDGE Act introduced by Senators Bennet and King. ALA named in Congressional news release. Support broadband deployment.

https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=B5E0A100-9BFC-4839-A5CB-22028644A34B

Steven Yates, an ALA Policy Corps member, meets with Sen. Shelby to make the case for federal funding for libraries during the pandemic

https://twitter.com/HeyLibraraman/status/1304169573462179842

ALA Midwinter Meetings and Exhibits (Conference) is virtual. A strong lineup is emerging.

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1306161568107966466

ARTICLES & NEWS

CEO John Sargent of Macmillan Publishers is departing the firm at the end of the year

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/books/macmillan-john-sargent.html

https://fortune.com/2020/09/18/one-of-the-great-enemies-of-the-public-library-is-departing/amp/

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/sargent-leave-macmillan-us-after-disagreements-direction-firm-1219575#

Imminent decision on the next U.S. Register of Copyrights:  Needs to be someone who will fairly reflect all stakeholders and views

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1303633888154136581

New AEI Report:  "Combined shortfalls in all state and local government revenue streams are likely to be on the order of $240 billion for the current fiscal year."

https://twitter.com/AEI/status/1304845988729966592

Generation Work-From-Home May Never Recover:  The social and economic costs borne by young people without offices

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/career-costs-working-from-home/615472/

Goodbye, Open Office. Hello, ‘Dynamic Workplace.’ With their headquarters largely empty amid the pandemic, tech companies are reconfiguring their open-plan spaces to appeal to employees when they return, with opportunities for collaboration and focus workers can’t get at home.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/goodbye-open-office-hello-dynamic-workplace-11599883273?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

In the New Yorker:  How Can We Pay for Creativity in the Digital Age?  There’s still money to be made, but it’s mostly not the creators who are getting rich.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/14/how-can-we-pay-for-creativity-in-the-digital-age

DPLA launches Black Women’s Suffrage Digital Collection

A Press Release from DPLA on a timely and much needed digital collection:

September 10, 2020 – Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is pleased to announce the launch of its new Black Women’s Suffrage Digital Collection. The collection makes freely accessible nearly 200,000 artifacts, including images, videos, letters, diaries, speeches, maps, diaries, and oral histories, from DPLA’s more than 4,000 partner institutions that document the contributions and experiences of Black women during the women’s suffrage movement as well as Black women’s activism from the 1850s to the 1960s. A highlight of the Black Women’s Suffrage Digital Collection is the Ida B. Wells Barnett Papers from the University of Chicago, a collection of correspondence, diaries, articles, speeches, newspaper clippings, and photographs from Wells Barnett’s storied life and work as an activist and suffragist. In the coming months an exhibit featuring items from the life of activist and suffragist Mary Church Terrell, courtesy of  Oberlin College, and the Charlotta Bass Papers, documenting the life of the publisher, activist, and leader Charlotta Bass, courtesy of the Southern California Library, will be added to the collection. The new site also includes a timeline that reveals the breadth and depth of Black women’s activism over more than a century and short biographies that give context to materials related to both well- and lesser-known suffragists and activists.

Key to the development of the Black Women’s Suffrage Digital Collection was a set of partnerships, announced in July 2020, with the Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library; Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture at the College of Charleston; Tuskegee University Archives; the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University; and Southern California Library. These collaborations, powered by funding from Pivotal Ventures, an investment and incubation company created by Melinda Gates, enabled these partner institutions to digitize artifacts related to Black Women’s Suffrage in their collections. These artifacts will include records from the Grace Towns Hamilton Papers, Atlanta Urban League Papers, and Neighborhood Union Collection at Robert W. Woodruff Library; records from the Phillis Wheatley Literary and Social Club Papers at Avery Research Center; the Tuskegee Women’s Club Journal at Tuskegee University Archives; records from the personal papers of Mississippi businesswoman, church leader, and civil rights activist Clarie Collins Harvey at Amistad Research Center; and records from the Charlotta Bass Papers at Southern California Library. Details about these partnerships and digitization efforts can be found here.

“We are thrilled to be able to connect scholars, students, and the public with this rich and diverse collection to help bring to life and contextualize the legacies of these inspiring Black women,” said DPLA Community Manager Shaneé Yvette Murrain. “The Black Women’s Suffrage Digital Collection is the culmination of nearly a year of work by our team and partners,” added DPLA Executive Director John S. Bracken, “We are especially proud to help elevate these important stories at this transitory time in American history.”

The launch of the Black Women’s Suffrage Digital Collection was celebrated on September 8, 2020, with Race, Power, and Curation, the most attended virtual event in DPLA’s history. It featured a keynote by Dorothy Berry, the Digital Collections Program Manager at Houghton Library, Harvard University, on the importance of curating Black Collections and intentionally centering Black Stories. DPLA board member Elaine L. Westbrooks, Vice Provost of University Libraries and University Librarian at UNC-Chapel Hill, opened the session talking about the impact of curatorial choices, and Yusef Omowale of the Southern California Digital Library discussed his organization’s work with the Charlotta Bass papers. In addition, representatives from DPLA’s Metadata Working Group, Leanne Finnigan and Penelope Shumaker, described the creation of a Harmful Content Statement, and DPLA Community Manager Shaneé Yvette Murrain, along with UI/UX designer Jasmine Lockwood, walked through the process of creating the collection. A recording of the event is available here. 

DPLA extends its thanks to all of our partners, our staff members past and present, and all of those whose creativity, dedication, and hard work contributed to the creation of BlackWomensSuffrage.org. Please find a full list of credits here. 

Maria Bustillos on the Lawsuit Against the Internet Archive

Maria Bustillos, writer and a founding editor of The Brick House, has published an op-ed in The Nation discussing the lawsuit by four of The Big Five publishers against The Internet Archive (IA). As noted previously by RF, the suit began against the IA’s National Emergency Library, which brought near unlimited access to works (mostly out-of-print and not in license) to educators, students, and the public during the COVID pandemic. Even after the IA shuttered the Emergency Library, however, the suit continues as appears aimed at the IA’s Open Library, which provides two-week one-person-at-a-time access to digitized books (again, the vast majority of which are in ”orphaned” copyright status or not in-print or licensed). The ultimate target appears to be Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) digitizing titles that a library owns and stores so that they cannot be physically checked out. In essence, the digital copy circulates in place of the print copy, allowing great access and chance of preservation.

Though RF has often voice its support of CDL and written about this lawsuit before, we invite librarians to read Ms. Bustillos’s piece. It is a clear and well-written account of the importance of CDL and the wrong-headedness of the lawsuit.

A few highlights:

But what’s really at stake in this lawsuit is the idea of ownership itself—what it means not only for a library but for anyone to own a book.

For-profit publishers like HarperCollins or Hachette don’t perform the kind of work required to preserve a cultural posterity. Publishers are not archivists. They obey the dictates of the market. They keep books in print based on market considerations, not cultural ones. Archiving is not in the purview or even the interests of big publishers, who indeed have an incentive to encourage the continuing need to buy.

But in a healthy society, the need for authors and artists to be compensated fairly is balanced against the need to preserve a rich and robust public commons for the benefit of the culture as a whole. Publishers are stewards of the right of authors to make a fair living; librarians are stewards of cultural posterity. Brewster Kahle, and the Internet Archive, are librarians, and the Internet Archive is a new kind of library.

The for-profit publishers in the lawsuit, however, do not care for this idea. What they allege in the complaint is this: “Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA [the Internet Archive] scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites.”

What this ominous description fails to acknowledge is that all libraries that lend e-books “distribute verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites.” Yet the publishers claim later in the same document that they have no beef with regular libraries. They love libraries, they say (“Publishers have long supported public libraries, recognizing the significant benefits to the public of ready access to books and other publications”), and are “in partnership” with them: “This partnership turns upon a well-developed and longstanding library market, through which public libraries buy print books and license ebooks (or agree to terms of sale for ebooks) from publishers.”

The real issue emerges here: The words “license ebooks” are the most important ones in the whole lawsuit.

Publishers approve of libraries paying for e-book licenses because they’re temporary, just like your right to watch a movie on Netflix is temporary and can evaporate at any moment. In the same way, publishers would like to see libraries obliged to license, not to own, books—that is, continue to pay for the same book again and again. That’s what this lawsuit is really about. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that publishers took advantage of the pandemic to achieve what they had not been able to achieve previously: to turn the library system into a “reading as a service” operation from which they can squeeze profits forever.

Libraries have operated on those principles for thousands of years, collecting, preserving, and sharing knowledge not for profit but as a public good—requiring nothing. For many centuries, young people of limited means have been the explicitly intended beneficiaries and users of libraries. Some of those young people grew up to write books themselves. It would be a tragedy if the profit motive were to succeed at last in putting an end to that.

Exactly! The lack of a perpetual license option from The Big 5, the need to constantly relicense, the absence of licenses on many culturally significant works, the possible disappearance of licenses on books as they age, and the Big 5’s treatment of literature as a commodity create an intolerable burden on libraries. We seemed doomed to a carousel of only what the Big 5publishers think is commercially viable now. We again call upon The Big 5 to come to the table to negotiate better license terms, encourage libraries to explore mid- and smaller publishers offerings that have better terms and prices—let’s MAKE a market rather than relying on the big publishers alone—and reiterate our support for CDL. Publishers, drop this suit! Is a library boycott of the publishers pursuing it, in support of CDL, out of the question? Nobody is talking about one . . . yet.

Panorama Project: “Immersive Media & Reading 2020” Consumer Research to Launch in September

The Panorama Project has put out a press release explaining that a consumer survey, undertaken with partner Portland State University, will “help understand how readers discover, access, and consume books in all formats (print, ebook, audiobook)—before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is the whole text. RF looks forward to seeing the results:

CROSS-PUBLISHING INDUSTRY INITIATIVE TO MEASURE ENGAGEMENT AND BUYING BEHAVIORS ACROSS PRINT AND DIGITAL FORMATS—BEFORE AND DURING THE PANDEMIC

The Panorama Project’s Immersive Media & Reading 2020 consumer survey, in partnership with Portland State University, will officially launch in mid-September 2020. The cross-publishing industry research initiative will help understand how readers discover, access, and consume books in all formats (print, ebook, audiobook)—before and during the COVID-19 pandemic—and how that engagement compares to other immersive media, specifically film, TV, and gaming.

"Portland State University is proud to be working with Panorama Project, BISG, the Authors Guild, ALA, IBPA, and PubWest to bring forward this important study that will broaden our collective understanding of book engagement and consumption within the wider media ecosystem,” said Dr. Rachel Noorda, Director of Book Publishing & Assistant Professor at Portland State University (PSU). “Working together with the committee, we have designed a study to address concerns across the book industry, and we are looking forward to analyzing the results."

The survey and methodology were developed by the Panorama Project’s Consumer Research Committee which was chaired by Dr. Noorda, and included representatives from the Book Industry Study Group (BISG), Authors Guild, American Library Association (ALA), Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA), and PubWest. It will be fielded in two waves (mid-September and late-October), and the data will be analyzed by Dr. Noorda and her colleague, Dr. Kathi Inman Berens, Associate Professor of English and Book Publishing at PSU. The final report will be published by and made publicly available through the Panorama Project in December.

“The ongoing pandemic’s uneven impact on the publishing industry—including authors, bookstores, and libraries—obviously forced us to revamp our approach to this research, and I’m sincerely thankful for each committee member’s invaluable contributions throughout the process,” said Panorama Project lead and committee secretary, Guy LeCharles Gonzalez. “One of Panorama Project’s primary goals is to establish a foundation for cross-industry collaboration that can produce useful and transparent data that can be widely shared and analyzed. The committee’s collective insights and expertise ensured we’ll not only capture useful data this year, but we’ve also established a strong foundation for ongoing and deeper research.”

"Conducting relevant industry research is one of BISG's four primary objectives,” said Brian O'Leary, Executive Director, BISG. “The industry needs a longitudinal study of how consumers view books in the broader media landscape, and Portland State is well-positioned to conduct this survey and interpret the data coming from it."

In addition to aligning engagement with books to other immersive media, another key goal of Immersive Media & Reading 2020 is to understand public libraries' role in the discovery, consumption, and purchasing behaviors of readers who use libraries for more than just books.

"There is a paucity of data about how libraries operate within and positively influence the larger media ecosystem—which includes ebooks but also other media,” said Alan S. Inouye, Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations, ALA. “The collection and analysis of such data is a challenging endeavor, as longitudinal data are needed to answer many of the most important questions. ALA thanks the Panorama Project for undertaking this ambitious and needed study."

Funding for Immersive Media & Reading 2020 was generously provided by the Book Industry Study Group (BISG), American Library Association (ALA), Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA), and OverDrive.

For more information on the Consumer Research Committee and the research methodology, please visit panoramaproject.org/immersive-media-reading-2020.

Andrew Albanese's Update on the Publisher/IA Lawsuit

Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly reported today that attorneys for the 4 publishers suing the Internet Archive (IA) and the IA archive itself have set out a one year discovery plan for the case, with “the first proposed deadline for initial fact disclosures on September 11, 2020, and would conclude with expert depositions due by September 20, 2021.”

Some of the disclosures would include the following:

• All aspects of the operations of the Internet Archive, Open Library, and National Emergency Library, including without limitation the development and application of “Controlled Digital Lending.”

• Defendant’s reproduction, display, distribution, and public performance of Plaintiffs’ Works alleged in the Complaint.

• Defendant’s fair use defense and other defenses.

• Defendant’s justifications for and promotion of “Controlled Digital Lending.” {CDL]

• Plaintiffs’ legal and contractual rights in the Works cited in the complaint, and the copyright registration for such Works.

• Plaintiffs’ sales, licenses, or agreements relating to the Works.

• Plaintiffs’ enforcement actions related to the Works.

• Plaintiffs’ actions related to the Works during COVID-19.

• Damages, including Plaintiffs’ claims for damages for willful infringement, as permitted by the Copyright Act.

RF has previously discussed this suit and CDL. While recent digital content commercially available under license may have to be eschewed—though that content is among other things precisely what is being litigated—CDL offers fair access to and preservation of thousands of titles that in a massive market failure are not available to readers, including Pulitzer and other prize winners. RF reiterates its support for CDL and calls upon librarians everywhere to defend the practice, with proper safeguards including removal of content upon request..

Price Creep in Canada? RF is Watching

Although the majority of Hachette e-books remain at $65 for 24 months , our Canadian partners have seen some price increases. All prices below are in Canadian dollars:

Queen: All The Songs: Teh Story Behind Every Track Estimated at $150 on pre-order

The Idea of the Brain: The Past and Future of Neuroscience $120

Man of Tomorrow: The Relentless Life of Jerry Brown $90

More than Ready: Be Strong and Be You $84

A-List Angels: How a Band of Actors, Artists, and Athletes Hacked Silicone Valley $84

The Less Dead $106

Simon & Schuster is not above a little price gouging either:

Reaganland: America’s Right Turn, 1976-1980 $163.99

USA prices seem stable for now. What gives, Hachette and S&S? Why the jump? Why these titles? We’ll be looking for more examples. and will be posting as we see them. If you are going to jump prices, could you at least consider a perpetual access option?

A Position Paper from Carmi Parker: Flexibility, Efficiency, Fair Pricing

Carmi Parker, ILS Administrator from Whatcom County Library System, has written a position paper based upon a study of over 11,000 digital title licenses and nearly a decade of looking at trends. Based upon revenues that might be gained from print equivalents, the model proposed considers how offering metered and perpetual licenses at different costs can provide flexibility without publishers losing revenue. The paper looks at different license models, benefits for libraries and publishers, library budgets, how library digital content vendors can improve services, and how all stakeholders might have a “win” by working together. Why is $15 for a 30 circ metered licenses “fair”? Download the paper to see.

”Neither libraries nor publishers are satisfied with the license terms currently applied to books in eFormats. We are not in agreement on what availability models and prices are fair, in part because we are still breaking new ground with these formats, their capabilities, and how to measure success. This position paper, by Readers First Working Group member Carmi Parker, proposes a single licensing model that aligns with print but optionally enables the unique capabilities of eLending: perpetual licenses and concurrent use.

The proposed model moves us toward:

• improved flexibility, which will help libraries better support the healthy culture of reading valued by both libraries and publishers

• increased efficiency for libraries for whom each model creates incremental work

• no significant cost increase for libraries or revenue decrease for publishers

In addition to introducing the model, the paper describes the evolution of license terms since 2011, analyzes the impact of the model changes on collections, and suggests how adjustments might benefit both publishers and libraries. Finally, it submits recommendations for moving forward.”

Download the position paper