OverDrive CEO Steve Potash Talks Streaming Video

As OverDrive moves away from the OverDrive app to Libby alone, some changes are occurring. Steve Spohn, Executive Director of Ocean State Libraries, had questions about what will happen with the streaming video content currently available in the OverDrive app and not in Libby. He communicated with OverDrive, and Steve Potash replied. Thanks to both Steves for allowing RF to share their Q & A.

Q: Tell us more about the transition from the OverDrive app to the Libby app.

 A: We know that Libby offers the easiest, best-in-class experience for users to browse and borrow titles from their digital library. Since we launched Libby in 2017, we've continued to build in new features and functionality and respond to partner and user feedback along the way.

Throughout Libby's development, we've also maintained the OverDrive app because:

1) We would like the change over to Libby to be a positive one, and we are approaching this change slowly and thoughtfully.

2) Libby does not offer the same feature set as the OverDrive app; sometimes intentionally and other times because the app is in ongoing development.

 Now that Libby is established in the market, it's time to start simplifying our app universe for our partners and users. The last required feature to build out in Libby before we could take steps to sunset the OverDrive app was screen reader support. The Libby team's main project throughout 2021 has been improving the accessibility of the app, including compatibility with mobile screen readers.

 Our long-term goal is to offer Libby as our single patron experience for Public Libraries. Achieving this goal will help eliminate confusion and deliver a simplified app experience and message for our partners and their patrons.

Q: We understand that video content is not available in the Libby app.  How can library patrons access OverDrive video content?

A: Patrons can access video content at their OverDrive website. Your Overdrive rep can help if you have questions about access.

 Q: It sounds like Kanopy will be OverDrive’s new platform for video content?

A. Yes, Kanopy is OverDrive’s flagship video app for libraries.

 Q: What will happen to the video content libraries have purchased on the OverDrive platform?

 A: We are evaluating our current OverDrive video catalog and working with suppliers and Kanopy to offer as much of the popular content as possible.   

Q: Will OverDrive bring new purchasing models for video content to the Kanopy platform?

A: Yes, Kanopy will be adding in Subscription bundle options for streaming video content.  More information here: https://librarytechnology.org/pr/27022?Row=2

 Q: What do you see as the future of streaming video for libraries?

 A: We expect that streaming video content will continue to grow as a valuable option for libraries to serve their patrons.  Content catalogs will expand with the addition of premium films and videos on the Kanopy platform, with significant focus on education, juvenile materials, global films, and select theatrical movies.  The cost models for Kanopy will also evolve to reflect how libraries seek to best utilize their budgets to serve their communities.

 OverDrive Marketplace will also add a variety of streaming video collections to the “Libby Extras” catalog that provide simultaneous access to a variety of premium streaming content.  Current offerings include Universal Class, Craftsy, ArtistWorks, The Great Courses, Qello Concerts, and many others.

Q: What else is on the horizon for OverDrive that you’d like to share with us?

 A:  See us at PLA for the latest.

Maryland Library Association Releases a Statement

The Maryland Library Association (MLA) has released a statement about the ongoing hearing on its ebook law.

Some highlights:

In her ruling, Judge Boardman noted the following: “Libraries serve many critical functions in our democracy. They serve as a repository of knowledge—both old and new—and ensure access to that knowledge does not depend on wealth or ability. They also play a special role in documenting society’s evolution. Libraries face unique challenges as they sit at the intersection of public service and the private marketplace in an evolving society that is increasingly reliant on digital media.”

In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Boardman nevertheless indicated that the matter of fair eBook pricing for libraries likely needs to be considered at the federal level. Though we are disappointed with the ruling, the Maryland Library Association (MLA) appreciates Judge Boardman for noting the vital importance of libraries and the challenges we face in the digital realm. As this legal matter proceeds, we hope for continued consideration of libraries’ unique position.

This hearing has shown that the status quo of publishers charging what they want for limited licensing is unjust. Judge Boardman herself said in the hearing, !It does seem to me that there is inequity and an unfairness on how publishers have treated public libraries.” This inequity is on clear display when it comes to the cost libraries, and in turn taxpayers, pay for physical materials in comparison to the restricted access and high costs of eBooks. Under the current model set by the publishers, libraries pay anywhere from $54 to $75 for a two-year license for a single eBook. By comparison, the printed version of the same book would cost a [library] $15 to $18 and not be subjected to a time-limited license. This illustrates the truth to our Attorney General’s claim that this is not a matter of copyright protection, but about “the unfair and discriminatory trade practices of publishers at the expense of public libraries.” MLA will follow the proceedings with confidence in our position and with profound thanks to the Maryland Legislature and the Maryland Attorney General’s Office for their determined stance and support. The legislature’s unanimous support is a reflection of the will of Maryland residents that one should not be required to have a credit card to access information.

To publishers offering “reasonable terms” already, as always we send thanks.

To others, we say this: libraries are not quitting. When all the merits of our side are heard, and with different language in laws as other states learn from Maryland (perhaps even preempting the AAP’s ability to sue), different outcomes are very possible. Coming to terms with us now on reasonable licenses will be to your advantage. There are options other than legislation if we cannot win through at the state and eventually the federal level.

In the meantime, the library community owes thanks to the Maryland Library Association, the Maryland General Assembly, and the Maryland Attorney General for advancing the library position. When people see the facts, the overwhelming response is that the current licensing terms simply make no sense. Nobody has any problem with profit, but profit so out-of-line with the market established by print is unfair. Taxpayers, and of course library readers, deserve better.

Connecticut Has Launched a Bill

Joining Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Illinois, Tennessee, Missouri, and of course Maryland (where the AAP lawsuit over the law continues against the state) and New York (where the Governor vetoed the legislation), legislators in Connecticut have now put forth an ebook bill.

Fairfield’s HamletHub has covered a press conference on the event.

One particular pressure point is the cost of providing electronic materials, which are far higher than those associated with print books. With more people borrowing eBooks and audiobooks than ever, this is the time to talk about ways we can support our libraries’ collections and their bottom lines,” said CT State Librarian Deborah Schander.

Libraries regularly pay four to five times what consumers pay for the same eBooks and then are forced to rebuy the same titles every year, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars over the life of a single eBook and making a robust eBook collection out of reach for many libraries. Publishers have been taking advantage of libraries and taxpayers for far too long, and I applaud Senator Hwang for bringing the public’s attention to this critical issue of access and equity for Connecticut residents," said Ellen Paul, Executive Director of the Connecticut Library Consortium.

“Libraries are pillars in our communities, connecting residents to one another, resources, and information,” Rep. McCarthy Vahey said. “Countless community members rely on these vital resources daily, which makes it critical to commit to securing sufficient funding for Connecticut libraries.”

Senator Hwang emphasized “I am deeply concerned over the mounting challenges that Connecticut’s libraries face to provide internet access, educational programs, physical library materials and digital resources. These are issues of social equity, access and accessibility. Libraries provide a way for seniors to leave their at-home isolation as well as a way for new families to connect with their child’s future classmates in town. No matter your age, social economic background and informational needs, I am here to say that I love our libraries.”

Inspiring!

Some of the language in the bill is new and different from that of other states. Providing titles “Upon the request of any library in this state” is new language and helpfully eliminates and of the (frankly ridiculous) claims that have been brought forward of individuals laying in wait to attack publishers under other state laws. "’Reasonable terms’ means purchase or licensing specifications that consider publishers' business models as well as libraries' efficient use of funds in providing library services” could still be called vague but can still be argued as valid in any legal challenge and softens other language somewhat by noting that fair treatment is considered vital. No language seems to forestall an AAP legal challenge based on preemption, but this addition to the growing list of states is indeed welcome!

RF thanks Rep. Vahey, Sen. Hwang, and the librarians of Connecticut for their great work. Welcome to the fight. It is a long and difficult one, but libraries will prevail. We owe library readers nothing less than total effort.

Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction on Maryland Ebook Law

As reported today by Andrew Albanese in Publishers Weekly, Judge Deborah Boardman yesterday issued a preliminary injunction preventing Maryland officials from enforcing the state’s ebook law.

“It is clear the Maryland Act likely stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of the Copyright Act ,” [she] concluded. . . . . Although the judge noted that the Maryland Act only requires an ‘offer’ to license and does not ‘explicitly require’ publishers to grant licenses to libraries, “this is a distinction without a difference,” Boardman concluded (lifting directly from the AAP’s brief), holding that the threat of civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance amounts to “a forced transaction” that “effectively strips publishers of their exclusive right to distribute.”

We at RF turn to Albanese’s report because it is, as usual, nuanced and fair, unlike more partisan views from the AAP and supporters. The case has not yet been fully adjudicated, but, as Albanese makes clear, the judge is leaning towards preemption of the law even though she notes the status quo is not fair for libraries:

Libraries serve many critical functions in our democracy. They serve as a repository of knowledge—both old and new—and ensure access to that knowledge does not depend on wealth or ability. They also play a special role in documenting society’s evolution. Libraries face unique challenges as they sit at the intersection of public service and the private marketplace in an evolving society that is increasingly reliant on digital media. [Yet] Striking the balance between the critical functions of libraries and the importance of preserving the exclusive rights of copyright holders, however, is squarely in the province of Congress and not this Court or a state legislature.

The ALA has issued a statement in support of Maryland libraries and State AG, which drew upon the statement by Alan Inouye quoted in Albanese’s piece:,

"Regardless of the legal technicalities, the proceedings thus far have established that there is a definite injustice in library access to digital books," Alan Inouye, ALA Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations, told PW. "ALA looks forward to the next steps in this proceeding as well as efforts elsewhere towards the goal of equitable library access to digital books and fair treatment for all stakeholders in the digital book ecosystem."

A Maryland Library Association statement is forthcoming.

The ruling for injunction, while one possible legal view, highlights the crying need for change. Ebook technology and the federal legislation currently in place allows publishers to disadvantage library readers.  To have access to Big 5 content, libraries must pay over and over due to license limits—a problem that might not be so bad if only the rates were anything like reasonable when compared to the prices we pay for print. We have of course seen content withheld either completely or so narrowly that accession is nigh unto impossible. Justice cannot exist if the public's access is so expensive and tenuous.  We cannot build deep and rich collections on the current unsustainable terms. The "nuclear option"--withholding purchase from any publisher not offering reasonable terms--is not attractive.  It disadvantages our readers and even plays into the hands of any publisher who frankly would rather not see libraries in the market at all. While a last desperate resort, it remains on the table if we cannot find other remedies.  I look forward to to seeing how the Maryland law plays out.  We in libraries are not quitting. We owe our readers too much to give in to an unjust if arguably legal status quo.

The fight will go on in Maryland and other states for access on reasonable terms. if necessary, we shall tweak the Maryland bill and bring it back, perhaps next year. To requote Judge Boardman, “Striking the balance between the critical functions of libraries and the importance of preserving the exclusive rights of copyright holders, however, is squarely in the province of Congress.” We shall go on, to Congress if necessary. The billions or trillions of the corporations fighting for EXCESSIVE even USURIOUS profit at the expense of the pubic weal will speak for them. We can bring people power only. Let us see if the people can win against corporate might. Somehow, someway, the relegation of library collections to overpriced rentals limited only by greed will not stand.

In the meantime, RF asks publishers to come forward for good faith negotiations with libraries and library associations. All we ask are fair terms.

Added: would someone please explain to me how fair terms for libraries will kill publishing, when we see things like these:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/financial-reporting/article/88551-lagardere-publishing-has-record-year.html

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/financial-reporting/article/88544-s-s-sales-neared-1-billion-in-2021.html

IA and Library Futures Host a CDL Community Update; Library Future's Annual Report

The Internet Archive and Library Futures are jointly hosting a Community Update on Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). With the publishers and their lobbyists, backed by the megacorporate money and influence, doubling down on their insistence that any digital price and licensing terms are perfectly fair, hindering libraries’ ability to build deep and lasting collections, CDL becomes a vital tool for libraries to fulfill our mission even as publishers use loopholes crated ty technology to create an imbalance in copyright. RF encourages exploration of this option.

From the hundreds of libraries using Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) to meet the needs of their communities to the many working groups and vendors investigating its potential, it’s clear that this innovative library practice is on the rise.

Want to learn more about what’s going on across the community? Join us for a public webinar to hear from active projects, followed by a Q&A. Whether you are new to Controlled Digital Lending or have already implemented it in your library, this session will give everyone an update on where the community is today & where it’s going.

March 10 @ 11am PT / 2pm ET - Register now for the virtual event.

Library Futures celebrates its first year by releasing an annual report of its many important activities. RF encourages taking a look. Library Futures has accomplished much in a short time. RF is delighted to support their work.

We’re thrilled to share our first Annual Report, an overview of our incredible year of growth and change at Library Futures. In only a short time, we’ve become one of the leading digital library policy and advocacy organizations and a crucial voice in the fight for balanced digital rights.

Read the report

PRH Extends its Temporary COVID Relief Models till June 30th, 2022

I’ve been notified by Penguin Random House of an “an extension of the temporary Covid-19 models and our Story Time Temporary Open License. We are not doing an official press release but working with our wholesale digital aggregators to announce to their own customer-base. “

There remains to be a disruptive impact on schools and libraries nationwide as all continue managing and coping with the pandemic health crisis. In light of this, as we continue to support libraries and schools, Penguin Random House is extending its Temporary Library [license] Models through June 30th, 2022.

All Penguin Random House titles, as well as those published by DK and Penguin Random House Publisher Services (PRHPS) client publishers, remain eligible for these temporary models.

Please let us know if there are any forthcoming changes to your participation by 2/28/2022, otherwise, we will assume your current ongoing participation is in effect.

 On a related note: We are also extending the Story Time Temporary Permissions to June 30th, 2022.

RF thanks PRH for helping during the ongoing pandemic.

Can A Digital Book Be Burned?

There are two fronts in the the library digital content wars—and though I hate to use martial metaphors, “war,” alas, is beginning to seem an apt comparison. The first, primarily being fought on state legislation action battlegrounds, is over licensing—not so much the existence of it as what might be reasonable and fair terms.

The second is over Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). Chris Freeland of the Interne Archive reports in ZDNet that a direct challenge has been made to lending digital copies of Maus, based on owned print copies that do not circulate:

The disturbing trend of school boards and lawmakers banning books from libraries and public schools is accelerating across the country. In response, Jason Perlow made a strong case last week for what he calls a "Freedom Archive," a digital repository of banned books. Such an archive is the right antidote to book banning because, he contended, "You can't burn a digital book." The trouble is, you can.

A few days ago, Penguin Random House, the publisher of Maus, Art Spiegelman's Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, demanded that the Internet Archive remove the book from our lending library. Why? Because, in their words, "consumer interest in 'Maus' has soared" as the result of a Tennessee school board's decision to ban teaching the book. By its own admission, to maximize profits, a Goliath of the publishing industry is forbidding our non-profit library from lending a banned book to our patrons: a real live digital book-burning.

The comparison to burning is perhaps not exact but is figuratively apt. As of 2019, no public library can own or even permanently license ANY ebooks from the Big 5 publishers and their imprints (two still allow digital audio on a perpetual basis—thank you!). Libraries are being forced, ironically, into a lending economy where they never own or have long-term access. Books become just another commodity and libraries just another customer—and often not a preferred customer but one resented for sharing what the publishers, or more likely THEIR corporate overlords, would like to be a “one read, one sale” model.

Digital loopholes have unbalanced, overthrown, and subverted the intent of copyright. More than just library holdings are at risk. It is time for change. Lacking a digital right of first sale, the growth and extension of CDL now seems imperative to keep all libraries not just relevant but even existing on sustainable terms.

Tennessee Also Has a Bill and the Maryland Hearing today

RF apologizes to Tennessee for not noting in late January (when mentioning Rhode Island and Illinois) that a library digital content bill is also active there as of Jan. 26.

SB1955 seeks the following: “This bill establishes requirements for a publisher that offers to license an electronic literary product to the public. Under this bill, a publisher who offers to license an electronic literary product to the public must offer to license the electronic literary product to libraries in the state on reasonable terms, which would enable libraries to provide library users with access to the electronic literary product.”

Thank you, Tennessee, and welcome! With you joining, some of the allies of the AAP can no longer claim that our effort is some elite coastal (Illinois sort of refuted that anyway—quite a bit of coast there, even if it is fresh water) and “blue state,” as if being a state where the populace primarily votes democratic invalidates anything. No, our effort is truly bi-partisan. Many proudly conservative state senators and representatives have voted “yes.” If yours is a “Red Sate,” you may have even more support. One of our key points is that the present status quo is a ripoff of public dollars on a massive scale. But good stewardship of public funds will play well anywhere.

Today’s Maryland hearing, Association of American Publishers v. Frosh, brought few surprises. Those following the case so far will have heard the basic arguments and the precedents. [Update: the hearing is well-covered in Andrew Albanese’s Publishers Weekly piece. One new point from the AAP attorney is that the state’s position is anti-capitalist, somehow demonizing profit. Typical AAP stretch: nothing in our Maryland denies profits. We will spend as much, or even more, if terms are better. The profits on library sales will be there—they might just not get distributed the same way. And perhaps newer or lesser known writers will get more of a share, with sales of their books increasing with more readership.

The issue of course isn’t profit. It’s excessive cost, at least when compared to what we spend on print. And though some of the bills advancing state that twice retail consumer ebook prices would be reasonable, I still think a comparison to print, with its hundred plus years of balance, is best, at least for public libraries. Twice consumer ebook price is likely to be around $30—not the at the publishers have an ebooks Bonanza at agency prices. Print retail would be about $27—a far fairer price on a two year license (or call it 30 to 40 circs—much better than a time-based license) than we pay from the larger publishers. Yes, give us that, and maybe a perpetual license at two or even three times that many public librarians might call it a deal. It’s vastly different for academics, of course. There, perpetual access, or better still ownership at retail print price is necessary. Unlike in most public libraries, the print equivalent usually doesn’t get worn out and retains value for research. Yes, different terms will have to be negotiated to get to “reasonable.” As we’ve said so many times before, no one model would suit every use, except perhaps ownership at consumer ebook retail—and at least in public libraries, that model would not seem fair to the publishers. (There, see—we can see it from all sides!)

Both sides presented well today. The summaries at the end laid out what this hearing is about: corporate interests vs people's needs. Corporate interests got everything that could have been wished for under DMCA. This hearing is about a rebalance for libraries and their readers. I'm not sure how else we will see any redress—not if the matter is left up to market forces under the current unfair status quo. We can only hurt readers by doing the one thing that may be necessary take to get any sort of concession: simply refusing to license at usurious rates. (Let’s call it the nuclear option—not attractive.) Today's AAP arguments didn't show that they have invalidated the state's position of having an overriding interest in fair contracts for libraries​. Judge Boardman noted at one point that "“It does seem to me that there is inequity and an unfairness on how publishers have treated public libraries.” Yes, indeed!

It is quite clear that more balance is needed if libraries are to fulfill their vital function of providing materials to all and continuing to be the "Palace for the People." We do not denigrate profit and want to treat authors and publisher fairly, but "enough" is long past. No matter what the outcome of today, this is an important and valuable step in what will have to be a long campaign. As many states are now showing, librarians AND their legislators will be there, fighting for readers. We in libraries are slow to be contentious, but we will not back down when our core mission is at stake. I'm very proud of our state legislature and our Attorney General for standing tall for Marylanders today. Outright dismissal of the AAP request for preemption seems unlikely. I hope we move into discovery. Let’s take a look at the profits. Maybe a few authors will want better deals, too. RF salutes the efforts in other states. We encourage others to join, no matter what the Maryland outcome. When we wake up to see that corporate interests have made digital content in libraries a commodity and source of every renewed revenue, always slipping away, impoverishing our collections and making access difficult for readers who don’t want or cannot afford to buy, it will be too late.

But with ebooks, that is how it already is with our holdings from large publishers, isn’t it?

Job Opportunities with Library Futures

Recent JD or MLS students may be particularly interested in the two paid internships with an organization that is making difference in library digital lending rights. Please see below:

So pleased to share two new fellowship opportunities at Library Futures: Policy Fellow and Community Fellow. https://www.libraryfutures.net/opportunities

These paid, part time, six month fellowships are in support of our work on digital rights for libraries and knowledge institutions.

Two More State Ebooks Bills Move Forward with One Well Underway

ReadersFirst has maintained that the Association of American Publishers (AAP) challenge to Maryland’s ebooks law, which could have been launched as early as June, was held till mid-December in part to put on pressure to veto the New York bill while of course aiming to chill efforts in other states.

The New York bill was vetoed—though the description of it as “well-intentioned” suggests it could be rewritten to pass—but the AAP’s action is far from chilling state efforts to redress the imbalance in the library digital content market that so disadvantages library readers.

Massachusetts continues efforts to pass a bill. Legislators there are voicing strong support of libraries. RF understands that the bill may be amended to include provisions currently appearing in the Illinois version of an ebook bill.

The Illinois bill adds something useful to Maryland’s.

Section 15. Prohibited contract provisions.

A contract or license shall contain no provision that restricts or limits a library's right or ability to loan or circulate electronic books and digital audiobooks to patrons using reasonable technological protection measures; restricts or limits a library's right to make non-public preservation copies of electronic books or digital audiobooks

That last point addresses library—and especially academic library—concerns abut preservation and could conceivably open the door to Interlibrary Loan through Controlled Digital Lending.

It was a busy week, with Rhode Island re-introducing a bill for their new legislative session. Like Illinois and Massachusetts, the bill applies to school libraries as well as public and includes right to digital preservation. RF understands that Rhode Island Library Association (RILA) wishes to add a few amendments to the Senate version. I’ll try to find out what they are and update this post.

It’s time to find out if the AAP will stick with its Maryland suit or engage in legal whack-a-mole with others. Legislators in three states are certainly aware of the AAP’s contention that federal law preempts these state laws. They aren’t buying it. States have a duty to protect against unfair trade practices. These bills aim to do exactly that. And they all have a solid chance of passing.

Why not join the movement? Your state, too, can stop the perpetuation of (to quote the Maryland A.G’s filing) “an inequitable “status quo” that, as applied to electronic literary products, upsets the centuries-old tradition of library access and does so solely to improve the publishers’ bottom line.” It is a just cause.