Halperin on Ebooks in Schools and School Libraries

[Disclosure: ReadersFirst is Coalition Partner of Library Futures]

ReadersFirst began with the aim of using technology to improve the library digital content experience; our members’ advocacy of APIs to streamline a cumbersome and frustrating download process resulted in significant beneficial changes. While continued progress in interoperability of publishers/vendors/ILS providers is necessary and would be welcome—particularly in helping acquisitions librarians work across platforms to manage shifting content licenses constantly in need of updating— it is now true that poor technological processes are no longer the main barrier to use of library digital content. That barrier is instead expensive and unfair licensing. Not every publisher is at fault. Many offer terms that are fair to authors, the publishers themselves, and libraries. Others do not. An area of particular imbalance is in schools and school libraries.

A powerful new voice in advocacy, Jennie Rose Halperin, Library Future’s Executive Director, has recently pointed out the salient issues in The Daily Beast with “Publishers Are Using E-books to Extort Schools and Libraries.” She notes that ebooks are far more expensive for schools and profitable for publishers than print.

“So you might think that e-books should be freely available to teachers and students to use in the same ways they’ve long used paper books, and at comparable prices. But they’re not. Instead, many of the biggest publishers are charging schools and libraries top dollar, putting digital books out of reach for tons of kids who need them while putting severe restrictions on how schools can use the books they’re now renting, rather than owning. The draconian terms mean, for example, that a single e-copy of The Diary of Anne Frank can cost a school district as much as $27 per student per year—with the lion’s share of the money going to billion-dollar publishing companies.”

Halperin rightly points out that concerns over avoiding copyright violations already frustrate online learning. She notes that the goal is to undermine the balance that copyright laws attempt to establish between competing rights: the copyright owner and the need for exchange of knowledge in a free and vibrant intellectual marketplace:

“The publishers’ ultimate goal is to turn e-books into assets that libraries and schools can only rent, and never own. The stakes couldn’t be higher. As the debate rages over the legal aspects of owning digital assets, rather than licensing them on terms set by corporations—which is at its core a fight over the right of schools and libraries to provide books for everyone, regardless of income level or zip code—poorer kids and their families are the losers.”

Nobody is saying that publishers and authors do not deserve fair compensation. Libraries of all kinds are dependent upon them. But the expectation that schools and libraries should have to pay for each use as if it were a consumer sale, at the rate that consumers pay, is clearly unsustainable and a disservice to the public weal. RF encourages reading of Halperin’s article and the beginning of legislative action to ensure a fair balance by a thorough-going look at copyright law with revision of the DMCA. In the meantime, we thank those publishers that do offer fair terms so that students may learn and grow.

Rob Pegoraro on CDL

In “The Paper-To-Pixels Workaround Activists Want To Use To Keep Libraries Online” in Forbes, Rob Pegoraro gives a useful overview of what Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) is, why librarians want to use it, and the pending lawsuit brought by publishers against the Internet Archive over CDL.

Reporting on a panel discussion about CDL, he concludes the following:

But CDL has yet to get a definitive verdict from courts, with the publishers’ lawsuit against the Internet Archive awaiting a hearing. In the panel, Kahle held out hope for this initiative’s possibilities: “We could build the Library of Alexandria version 2!”

But courts have a history of deciding that introducing a computer to a copyright argument, no matter the nuance of the situation, requires harsher restrictions. And a losing verdict in the Internet Archive’s case risks furthering a future Joseph warned of in the panel: “It’s no longer a library card, it’s increasingly a credit card.”

RF urges reading of the article, especially by those not familiar with CDL or the lawsuit. Mr. Pegoraro rightly notes, though he doesn’t say so explicitly, that the suit is all about CDL itself and not an unlimited use of CDL. The Internet Archive experimented with an expansion of CDL with its National Emergency Library last year, but dropped the Emergency Library over objections. The publishers nevertheless continue the suit. And a loss, as the passage above chillingly notes, would mean libraries could lose their only key to unlocking the license jail cell we are in.

“Copyright law,” as has often been noted, “seeks to find a balance between opposing interests.” In the digital realm, that balance seems out of whack. Libraries cannot share much content that publishers either do not or will not license. Why should we not be able to, using a tool that is all-but identical to how we share print books under Fair Use? If the IA loses, we can hope that federal legislators will realize that he balance in digital realm is tilted too far away from the public interest, certainly on orphan and “gray” titles. To these works, at least, shouldn’t libraries have the right to share as we do in print?

DPLA Exchange Increases Number of Publishers Offering Flexible Terms

RF has been posting what seems like forever about how no one license model suits all library needs, though perpetual access at retail price would come darn close. Time and again we have called for publishes to give libraries multiple models at point of license, allowing us the flexibility to use our limited $$ most efficiently. We recently thanked OverDrive for the multiple models it offers. As we have also posted previously, it seems the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is the foremost promoter of flexible licenses—not because it makes them money but for the good of libraries. The DPLA Ebooks program has recently provided an update on their offerings:

“Over the past year, DPLA has worked with publishers including Workman, Abrams, and Independent Publishers Group to develop a variety of flexible licensing models that serve the interests of libraries, authors, and publishers. These include 40 x 10 concurrent, unlimited one-at-a-time, and 5 concurrent loans at 1/4 the price. Currently, titles from 25 publishers are available with multiple licensing models, giving libraries the flexibility to keep one copy perpetually on the virtual shelf while lending out multiple copies of in-demand titles simultaneously. (See an example here.) In addition, more than 30 publishers are offering unlimited simultaneous use licensing through BiblioLabs, including Capstone, Orca Book Publishers, Independent Authors Project collection, Triumph Books, Chicago Review Press, Dark Horse Comics, and many more.

Licensing models available in the DPLA Exchange include:

Perpetual one-user-at-a-time access

The one-use-at-a-time model creates queues and “friction” for popular books but perpetual access ensures that the item will remain in the library's holdings and available to be discovered for years to come.

Bundles of 40 lends available 10 at a time

This new “bundle of lends” model is designed to help libraries promote books AND maintain availability, allowing the titles to have maximum discovery through the library but also ensuring that, if popular, the title is repurchased (in as little as 8 weeks). This option has been popular with libraries and many have acquired all the titles available on this model.

Bundles of 5 lends available simultaneously

This small bundle allows libraries to take a low-risk chance on a book they may not otherwise acquire. It also allows the publisher and author to collect a higher price on a per-lend basis.

Simultaneous multi-user access collections

Bundles of books available to an unlimited number of patrons allow libraries to promote titles without fear of long holds queues. This model also allows publishers to include and promote discovery of lesser-known authors and titles.

Community Reads

Community Reads licensing enables simultaneous access and empowers libraries to highlight a book without making patrons wait in holds queues for the recommended work. This is a great way to drive discovery of new authors and titles.

To find out more about the DPLA Ebooks program or how your library can start purchasing books through the DPLA Exchange, please get in touch.”

RF thanks the DPLA Ebooks program for working to deliver what libraries need.

An Exchange of Letters to PW

An attorney for the Association of American Publishers (AAP) has written a letter to the editor of Publishers Weekly claiming a bill passed by the Maryland legislation and awaiting the Governor’s signature is “likely unconstitutional,” attacking an opposing opinion from ALA counsel as quoted by PW in an article about the legislation.

This letter’s legal claims aside—though those will be addressed—RF calls foul. The AAP attorney says it was “regrettable” that PW published an opposing claim. Isn’t the essence of responsible journalism to present legitimate arguments? Take up the argument, by all means, but don’t suggest a publication has erred by covering opposing opinions. This neo-Trumpian effort at painting a legitimate if opposing point-of-view as mere disinformation is lacking in intellectual rigor, dishonest, and just plain cowardly.

The ALA counsel has replied with a letter taking AAP’s attorney to task. It points out “PW was just engaging in good journalism, providing different points of view concerning a complex policy issue: federal preemption of state legislation. If Mr. Hart believes I made a ‘false statement,’ he knows where to find me to engage in a substantive discussion. “

It continues to address a legal point: “Nothing in the Copyright Act nor the U.S. Constitution prevents the State of Maryland from requiring equitable access to copyrighted works sold in Maryland. By unreasonably discriminating against public libraries, publishers unreasonably discriminate against the populations served by public libraries.”

Just so. It is of course more complex an issue than this example, but if I were to walk into a bookstore to buy a book in Maryland, could a publisher tell the store owner not to sell to me because I was going to put the book in a library? Our Maryland bill specifically guarantees we will circulate content under license terms set by the publishers themselves. It transfers no ownership rights to us. And who after all has all the power when it come to the distribution of digital content through libraries? It’s not like we in Maryland libraries are strapping on our hob-nailed boots, the better to grind the poor powerless publishers gleefully under our heels. Publishers have ever called the ebook tune, and libraries dance to that tune or sit out as wallflowers. Are you licensing in Maryland? Fine. All we in libraries want is access under the terms you set. Maryland has a compelling interest in allowing library readers access to the full range of content that the AAP itself says is “valuable.” The legislation is reasonable, not radical. We in Maryland libraries are grateful to our legislators for standing for our residents rights to be informed without having to plunk down a credit card. And RF thanks PW for a fair look at this matter, including posting the AAP objections exactly as presented.

PRH Extends (Yet Again!) Its Discounted Digital Book Program

In a press release yesterday, Penguin Random House announced that it will continue its “Emergency eBook Terms as COVID-19 Continues to Adversely Impact Libraries and Schools.”

RF thanks PRH for this extension, which is benefitting libraries.

Now maybe we can talk about this being the new normal for after the pandemic? (Sorry, couldn’t resist asking.)

“As the second year of the pandemic health crisis continues to have a wide-ranging disruptive impact on schools and libraries nationwide, Penguin Random House is again extending its Temporary Library Terms of Sale: Special Program in Response to COVID-19, to now run for all of 2021, through December 31.

Penguin Random House sells its imprints’ books through wholesalers, who have been provided with the temporary-pricing models, which continue in place, and these accounts are all eligible to participate, based on their respective systems’ capacity to accommodate and implement these temporary terms.

All Penguin Random House frontlist and backlist adult and children’s fiction and nonfiction titles, as well as those published by DK and Penguin Random House Publisher Services (PRHPS) client publishers, are eligible for this program.

Skip Dye, Senior Vice President, Library Sales & Digital Strategy, Penguin Random House, said, ‘With these new interim terms we introduced in March 2020, and with this extension, our publishers remain unwavering in our commitment to support public and school libraries, ensuring that all of our titles are available day-and-date to consumers and patrons. This community is telling us that these temporary terms are helping to make our authors’ works more accessible for educators and students, especially those who are continuing to engage in remote learning, and to library patrons across the country, which is very gratifying.’

Penguin Random House proudly partners with schools and libraries, which are the epicenters of our communities: They encourage new readers, support lifelong learners, and delight book lovers of all ages. Penguin Random House and the American Library Association (ALA) have announced the 2021 winner of the ALA’s Penguin Random House Library Award for Innovation. More information about the award program can be found here.”

[Updated: in Canada, too] OD Price Hikes Raise Questions

An update to this story: a RF partner from Canada reports a price increase of over 100%.

2020 Tantor 25 titles, $1875; 2021, $3787; increased by $1912

2020 Blackstone 25 titles, $2250; 2021, $4544; increased by $2294

Doubling the price without prior notice? That’s sure a great look during a pandemic.

OverDrive recently sent out an invitation to “Reach More Readers with Simultaneous Use.” ReadersFirst is certainly glad to see innovative license models allowing simultaneous use, but a number of librarians experienced sticker shock when they saw the details.

One shared the following with ReadersFirst, reporting an unannounced price hike on plans they previously had:

 “Our Simultaneous Use Pricing changed “quietly" as follows:

 Tantor 25 - was $1,500.  Became $2,500.  “Discounted" now at $2,250.

Blackstone - was $1,800.  Became $3,000.  “Discounted” now at $2,700.”

 Another confirmed the price hikes: we noticed a “substantial increase across the board in SU [Simultaneous Use] packages. [The jump] was 100% for us, then dropped to 60%.  I have had other libraries confirm various levels of change.  I have been doing some SU historical tracking for calculated cost per use trends over time, so the change was super noticeable to me.”

A third reported that her library doesn’t “buy any of these packages, but I am hearing from some other . . .  libraries that the prices increased by up to 60% between 2020 and 2021.”

 One more librarian reported that in 2020 she had licensed “Blackstone package with 50 titles for $4,500. Now it’s that price for 25 titles. So, a big increase from this time last year. I didn’t buy any SU packages April – December of 2020 because the circ on audio was disappointing.”

The overall dollar costs for these packages are not high, though librarians will need to monitor use carefully to see if they are worth any investment. 60% price jumps are never welcome, but they seem particularly ill-advised during a time of pandemic, when demand is likely to be high and libraries are struggling to provide enough resources to meet that demand.

The author’s request for comment on this post, made to an OverDrive representative for his library consortium, has gone unanswered.  Other OverDrive representatives have responded to requests from other members of the RF work to say that OverDrive charges according to library size, use IMLS data on population served to determine size, and had just after many years had indexed package prices to IMLS data, hence this necessary price increase. Another claimed that the change was due to refactored pricing based upon annual circulation. Both justifications are specious. Population served figures don’t officially change until the decennial census, figures for which are still being compiled as of writing.  Libraries which have seen no likely increase or even a decline in population size nor large increases in circulation have now seen price increases, while at least one library that has seen large circ increases has seen no increase.

 If OverDrive wishes to clarify the reasons for this increase, we will post it. For now, it looks like OverDrive, a company that has presumably seen its recent profits soar given increases in library digital demand for ebooks, is price-gouging during the pandemic, claiming that libraries are doing more business and so must pay more for products that aren’t necessarily increasing in use. Thanks for nothing.

Will the Houghton/HarperCollins Deal Be a Bust for Libraries?

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is divesting its trade division and HarperCollins is acquiring it.

This deal could be bad news for library digital content.

The issue is differences between the two publisher on license terms.

HMH has been licensing ebooks and digital audiobooks under a one copy/one user perpetual access license. None of the Big 5 currently offers that long-term option. HarperCollins at least uses a circ-based metered model, and not the “exploding” time bound licensed, and we are grateful for that. Will HC offer the classic titles it is getting (including Tolkien, Orwell, Lowry, and Atwood) under the HCH terms, or will it flip them to its current metered option, under which titles expire after a certain number of uses? Worse, will HarperCollins have the right to nullify previous license agreements and require relicensing ?

We could be looking at having to spend a lot of time and money relicensing old favorites. Hope everyone has stocked up under the old HMH terms! HRM, maybe it’s time for Going-Out-Of-Business Sale to benefit your customers?

Even newer titles in HMH often have favorable price terms for libraries, often at or even below hardcover print price for perpetual access. If HC uses its current licensing/cost model for the titles it is gaining and raises the prices on future releases by authors, the financial impact could be significant.

With digital audiobooks, both HRM and HC offer a perpetual access license, so the impact may be less. Overall, however, HMM prices have generally been less than HC's by some 14% or so.

Digital library collections could become poorer in the number of titles offered and in selection, with mid-tier, new, and more diverse becoming more expensive and less sustainable. HarperCollins, to be fair, has some of the more reasonable pricing, at least among the Big 5. Maybe it won’t be too bad. It would be worse if HC used time-bound licenses—thanks for not doing that, HC!

So, HarperCollins, yes, we prefer your circ-bound licenses to those of the other Big 5 publishers. Would now be a good time to adopt flexible models, keeping some perpetual access terms in addition to continuing to offer metered models? You could charge a higher price for perpetual access while allowing libraries the option of a less expensive metered option to meet immediate demand.

We hope at any rate that all past licenses will remain valid.

DPLA Community/Open Board Meeting Looks Interesting

Some thoughtful library leaders will be on a panel at the quarterly DPLA Community and Open Board Meeting on April 9, 2 pm Eastern Time. Register here.

“With expanded vaccine access, many of us have begun to conceive of what our post-Covid worlds might look like. These visions are necessarily colored by all that we have learned during the last year—from the benefits of flexible working arrangements to the urgent need to finally dismantle systemic racism in our work. We’ll be joined by:

• Timothy Cherubini, executive director of COSLA (Chief Officers of State Library Agencies)

• Crosby Kemper, director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services

• Mary Lee Kennedy, executive director of the Association of Research Libraries

• Rachel Vagts, president of the Society of American Archivists

We’ll talk about the opportunities they see for positive change and growth in the coming year, as well as give an update on what’s next for DPLA.”

The ALA Urges Action

The ALA Public Policy and Advocacy Team has requested action to fund libraries:

“As early as next week, President Biden is expected to submit an outline of his proposed budget spending requests for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, which includes federal funding amounts for libraries. We need your help starting NOW until the final budget is signed in order to ensure that libraries are fully funded in the next fiscal year.

Today, ALA has launched our annual FY2022 #FundLibraries Campaign, and we encourage you to bookmark this page and browse the provided resources that can be shared amongst your library community. Included is the one-page introduction to federal library funding, state-by-state library factsheets to share with your elected officials, and a handy visual guide on the overall federal appropriations process.

Because things are a bit different this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent passage of the American Rescue Plan Act, the Dear Appropriator letters have begun circulating this week in both the House and Senate, a few weeks later than in previous years. These letters are circulated to all Members of Congress by library champions in the House and Senate to rally colleagues in support of library funding before the appropriations budget is negotiated. The FY2022 budget will include the designated amounts that the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) will be able to grant to libraries through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), along with the Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) grant program through the U.S. Department of Education, which supports school libraries and other literacy-related organizations. For FY2022, we are asking congressional appropriators to include funding of at least $206 million for LSTA and $50 million for IAL. 

Will you contact your members of Congress and ask them to sign onto the Dear Appropriator letters?

Take Action Now

We also encourage you to start the momentum on social media and urge your elected officials to support strong funding for libraries. On ALA's #FundLibraries Campaign page, we have included downloadable graphics for you to use with your posts to better increase their overall visibility. Here is a sample tweet that you can customize and share:

The past year has shown how important libraries are for community success and recovery. @[your members of Congress], please #FundLibraries and ensure that no community has to go without library services.

Thank you so much for your continued advocacy, and we look forward to working with you this year to ensure that libraries are fully funded in FY2022!”

RF encourages library stakeholders to join in this effort!

Carmi Parker: "Equitable Access is the Future for All of Us"

Carmi Parker, ILS Administrator for Whatcom County Library System (disclosure: also RF Working Group Member) has written a post for the Library Futures, a group dedicated to taking “control of our digital futures.”

The piece is very much worth a read, and I encourage anyone interested in library digital content to do so. After reviewing some recent changes in licensing and some publishers refusal to license to libraries at all, the deleterious effect this as upon readers and publishers, the recent Panorama project study on “avid engagers,” and some suggestions for models and pricing that might prove beneficial for authors, publishers, and libraries, Ms. Parker asks three questions in need of answering:

• Why is eLending growing?

• How do less- or more-restrictive access models impact authors’ discoverability and sales over time?

• How might eBooks and eAudiobooks help create audiences and careers for the 21st century authors of color whose voices will enrich our communities?

She concludes powerfully, “One of Library Futures principles states that equitable access is the future of libraries. But I will go further: equitable access is the future for publishers too, the future for all of us.”

Ms. Parker makes some interesting suggestions for how to make it so. We hope for dialogue between stakeholders to makeit happen.