Join Unite Against Book Bans

RF generally keeps its posts somehow directly related to library digital content matters.

Our efforts to streamline and enhance the digital content experience and expand access to titles on reasonable and sustainable terms will be useless, however, if the only content that can be shared is unexceptionable pablum for the blue-nosed and dogmatists.

We encourage all with any interest in library digital content matters to join the ALA’s Unite Against Book Bans campaign:

Although book bans are nothing new, there were more censorship attempts in 2021 than at any time since the American Library Association began tracking more than two decades ago [and 2022 is going to be worse!].

Unite Against Book Bans is a national campaign to protect the rights of everyone to access a variety of books, in libraries and elsewhere.

We trust individuals to make their own decisions about what they read and believe.

Join us as we unite against book bans.

Concerted efforts and loud support will be necessary if we all don’t wish to wake up one day to laws saying librarians should be subject to jail terms for not censoring our collections and to collections that offend nobody—which is to say, no collection worth having.

Hey, publishers—don’t leave librarians to fight this one alone. Wanna sell books? You’re in this fight too. Time to mix it up. We all have too much to lose.

Good News: Blackstone Ends its Library Embargo

Blackstone Audio, which had been holding certain parts of its catalog from libraries for 90 days after date of publication, has announced that it will stop this practice:

Chief Sales Officer Anne Fonteneau announced the following this week:

In a continued effort to increase accessibility of audiobooks, Blackstone Publishing will release all new titles to all retail and library markets simultaneously, in both digital and physical formats, starting on July 1, 2022. Pre-order links on all sites will show up simultaneously wherever books are sold. At launch, Blackstone will release Retail CD, Library CD, MP3-CD and retail and library editions. Digital editions will be available from our digital partners on their first available release date. The Blackstone catalog is available under the perpetual one book/one user model, as well as pay-per-use, multi-use and other models.

Since the titles that Blackstone held back were joint with Audible, and since Audible will now release titles to libraries through the DPLA Palace Exchange, this move was perhaps not a big surprise. Why hold back what someone else is licensing? Still, there is much to be thankful for.

Available on first release date? Check.

Multiple models? Excellent!

RF suspects that state-level ebook advocacy has played a part in various publishers coming to the table with libraries—yet another good reason for that advocacy.

Thank you, Blackstone, for this much.

Maryland A.G. Declines to Further Pursue the State's EBook Law

As noted by Andrew Albanese in PW, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office will not further pursue defending the state’s ebook law.

Marylanders, and indeed all in the library community, have every reason to be proud of Maryland’s legislators and A.G. Passing legislation unanimously and defending that legislation has brought much needed attention to unfair, even predatory terms that our county’s broken copyright laws allow the Big 5 to charge for their library digital content.

The Library of Congress is protected from some unfair terms in license agreements: CFR § 701.7 - Certain terms in license agreements . I find it ironic if unfortunate that Congress exempts its own library from the issue we face but that its laws seemingly forbid public libraries the same protection.

As the ALA notes in a statement,

The library community also has new public support from several important officials. For example, during the Maryland hearing, Judge Boardman said “It does seem to me that there is inequity and an unfairness on how publishers have treated public libraries.” Here are several public statements by Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, made during the course of the lawsuit:

1. “Publishers capitalize on the digital revolution at libraries’ expense.”

2. “We [Office of the Attorney General of Maryland] think publishers should not be able to unfairly take advantage of Maryland public libraries. We will continue to pursue fair treatment for Maryland public libraries.”

3. “Many publishers have exploited the rapid advancement of digital technology to discriminate against public libraries when licensing e-books and audiobooks.”

4. “Technology has enabled publishers to create two classes of customers—those who can afford to buy electronic literary products and public libraries who serve those who cannot—while charging the latter substantially more for the same product.”

Legislators in at least 8 states have considered how the public coffers are being unfairly drained. Every bill may not pass, but at least three look promising. And the Maryland hearing is not binding on hearings in other states, and, should the AAP sue elsewhere, it has no guarantee of a favorable result. Other states have in any case learned from Maryland, and the bills are so tweaked that the AAP may find difficulty in challenging them. States may not be able set publisher terms, but they can certainly prevent public entities from entertaining unfair contracts. We eagerly await the results of other state legislation.

Maryland itself is not done, as the Maryland Library Association has stated:

We are disappointed to hear that the judge is considering the permanent injunction, even though it has been acknowledged that the treatment libraries are receiving from publishers is unfair. Should a permanent injunction be put into place, libraries in Maryland and across the county will continue to use all the avenues at our disposal to seek for reasonable terms with publishers to ensure that we can continue to provide access to digital materials. We applaud the work that Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh and his team have done on behalf of Maryland's libraries and the individuals who rely on them every day.

We are not only unbowed but not even bloody. Even if that law has not stood for now, it has done much good. It should be a long time before even a major publisher tries any sort of embargo. And the attention to libraries’ just cause is invaluable.

Libraries are far from finished with this fight. The Maryland law is down, but libraries are not out and never shall be. We, our readers, and our legislators are tired of unfair terms. it is just a matter of how we get equity, for us and the readers who depend upon libraries to be informed.

Upcoming Webinar: Collaborating for Access: Creating More Inclusive Ebooks

On April 12, a COSLA, DPLA, and ReadersFirst Webinar will consider an important future direction for ebooks: greater accessibility. Panelists are informed experts. You won’t have to put up too much with that Blackwell guy—he’s only there to ferry questions from you, the attendee, to the panel. Join us for what is certain to be an interesting discussion.

Collaborating for Access: Creating More Inclusive Ebooks

Tuesday, April 12 at 1 pm ET

In this second in our Collaborating for Access series of webinars hosted by COSLA, DPLA, and ReadersFirst, we’ll bring together a variety of experts and thought leaders to discuss the potential to bring easy, enjoyable reading experiences to all through the development of more inclusive ebook design. What might a truly inclusive ebook look like, and how can we all work together to bring forth a future of reading that is truly accessible to everyone?

Jason Broughton, National Library Service Director, National Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled

Darren DeFrain, Ph.D., Co-creator, Vizling App and Wichita State University

Reginé Gilbert, User Experience Designer and Author, Inclusive Design for a Digital World

Aaron Rodriguez, Co-creator, Vizling App and Ph.D. student, Florida State University

Moderated by Michael Blackwell of ReadersFirst

Please register here.

Registration link: bit.ly/collab-for-access

Controlled Digital Lending News

Don’t forget the Internet Archive Community Update on Controlled Digital Lending tomorrow, 11 am Pacific Time. Sign up here. “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.”

Seven librarians from Canada have published a paper on that “explores legal considerations for how libraries in Canada can lend digital copies of books” through Controlled Digital Lending (CDL).

The paper aims to “help libraries and their lawyers become better informed about the concept by fully explaining the legal rationale for controlled digital lending in Canada, as well as situations in which this rationale is the strongest.”

The authors contend the following:

CDL shifts . . .lending to a new format that opens up access possibilities for readers with disabilities, physical access limitations, research efficiency needs, or other needs for digitally accessible content. We are aware that libraries across Canada are discussing the value of CDL in a range of areas, such as to improve the efficiency of interlibrary loan, to support lending among institutions that share last copies for preservation, and to enable access during periods of library closure. We also contend that CDL may be used more generally for library lending, including to improve availability of out-of-print materials for all Canadians.

The paper gives a detailed consideration of the legal aspects of “fair dealing.” ReadersFirst hopes all Canadian librarians will give it careful consideration and work towards appropriate implementation. See an abstract and review the paper here. [Disclaimer: one of the authors, Christina de Castell, did pioneering work for ReadersFirst and still follows our Working Group activities. Great paper, Christina!]

Meanwhile, UC Davis Library and California Digital Library are exploring expanded lending of digitized books.

Under the leadership of the UC Davis Library and the California Digital Library (CDL) and with support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, UC has begun an investigation of key questions around the future of ebook lending, such as:

• What have we learned about the best uses for print versus digital books, and what are the implications for the future?

• How does digital book lending extend and strengthen the historical role of the academic library in ensuring long-term access to scholarship?

• What legal framework(s) and/or case law might support various long-term options for large-scale digital book lending, beyond the emergency context of the pandemic? Does a form that builds on controlled digital lending offer a scalable solution?

• What technologies and formats are required for a large multi-campus university system like UC to implement such a system at scale?

• What critical mass of digitized books is needed to create a viable, compelling resource for scholars? What content gaps might need to be filled via targeted digitization within UC’s mass digitization efforts?

• How do authors, including those among UC’s staff and faculty, perceive the ethical and legal issues involved?

• And importantly, as we look to the future, what transformative research opportunities might be enabled by broader access to digital books?

ReadersFirst looks forward to seeing the white paper that will be produced as a result of this project and the ebook delivery system that will be developed.

No doubt in part because of the lack of digitization of most older works by publisher and the severe limitations on many licenses of such older works as are digitized, libraries continue to explore CDL as a valuable and vital too for content sharing. There are policies and procedures to formalize and standardize, but the rewards more than justify the work.

Ebooks Friday at ALA Annual Taking Shape

June 24th is (once again!) "Ebooks Friday" at ALA Annual.

 For those of you not able to attend in person, I'm working on a Zoom virtual option.

 9:30 - 10:30:  Ebooks Interest Group (Everyone welcome-publishers, vendors, librarians of course-for a wide-ranging discussion of trends and concerns in the library digital content.)  

10:45 - 11:45:  Consortial Ebooks Interest Meeting (By popular demand, a forum for discussion of issues specifically related to use of digital content in consortiums)

1:00 – 2:00:  Palace (The latest news about the Palace library digital content app, perhaps demos of functionality)

2:15 – 3:15:  SimplyE (The latest news about the SimplyE library digital content app, perhaps demos of functionality)

3:30 – 4:30: Library Futures (If you are not familiar with Library Futures, this will be an interesting session-updates and discussion of controlled digital lending, state ebook laws,  and a review of 1st year accomplishments.

 Room # at ALA Annual to be determined.

Hope to see you there!

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