Censorship Efforts Target Ebooks

Of course we knew it was coming. NBC reports that efforts to censor library books, especially in schools but also in public libraries, are being intensified: “Conservative parents take aim at library apps meant to expand access to books.”

The efforts from a few years back to censor EBSCO databases, fortunately shot down in court, and more recently in Llano (TX), which shut down the public library’s OverDrive account and where residents are bravely fighting back in court, are becoming broader, even including efforts to ban ereader apps statewide.

Ironically, when eight states are trying to expand access by getting fair license terms, explaining that current terms prevent reading because libraries simply cannot afford sustainable access and yet being fought, an even greater threat to patrons’ right to read arises.

This is at least an area where publishers, library vendors, and libraries can agree. An as reported by Andrew Albanese in PW, the ALA’s Unite Against Book Bans is bringing us together. The following have signed on, among many others and thousands of individuals:

American Booksellers Association Free Expression Initiative

American Federation of Teachers

American Indian Library Association

Asian Pacific American Librarians Association

Association for Library and Information Science Education

Association of Bookmobile and Outreach Services

Authors Guild

Baker & Taylor

Black Caucus of the American Library Association

Candlewick Press

Chinese American Librarians Association

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Freedom to Read Foundation

Human Rights Campaign

Lerner Publishing Group

Macmillan Publishers

National Book Foundation

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Council of Teachers of English

Overdrive Inc.

Penguin Random House

Simon & Schuster

Society of American Archivists

Sourcebooks

Steve and Loree Potash Family Foundation

The Quarto Group

It’s nice to see PRH, S&S, and Macmillan. Thanks, Sourcebooks, Lerner, and Candlewick! Hachette and Harper Collins, have you signed on? AAP, too busy snootering libraries to sign up?

RF encourages all librarians, libraries, publishers, and vendors to sign on. Lawmakers need to hear that there is another side standing against those who want to control what everyone can read. Vendors, it isn’t enough for you to say “If they choose, teachers can block any book, for any reason, at any time.” If all you do is protect your business and suggest that challenging books aren’t your problem, then you are contributing to the problem.

The NBC article perfectly reveals the attitudes of those who fight to censor:

Robin Steenman, a Williamson County parent who opposes the use of Epic, said it didn’t matter to her that students would have to actively search to find books about LGBTQ pride. She didn’t want the books in the app at all.

“It has still been made available to the student, regardless of whether it is assigned reading or not,” Steenman, who also runs a local chapter of the conservative group Moms for Liberty, wrote in an email. “I guarantee that kids know exactly where to find it.”

It isn’t about protecting children. It’s about pushing narrow-minded and narrow-hearted views onto everyone else. And the ability to shut down reading for thousands, even millions of others is an awfully tempting target for our contemporary blue-nose Mrs. Grundies. They are in the minority. We must all make sure they stay that way.

Unite Against Book Bans!

ReadersFirst, DFPLA, and COSLA will hold a webinar on this topic on June 7 at 1 PM Eastern Time: Collaborating for Access: Book Challenges in a Digital World . More details are forthcoming. Please consider joining us!

Testimony on Rhode Island Bill

While attention is focused on Maryland’s ebook law being set aside (this iteration of it, anyway—but we’ll be back!), other states are forging ahead to bring bills into law. One is Rhode Island, where two librarians gave testimony before the Senate Education Committee on April 27th. Despite having to wait nearly four hours to testify, Ms. Sallee and Ms. Holden hit their marks and their comments were well-received by the legislators. They testified well to libraries’ fundamental points:

• the deleterious changes in licensing, with circulation periods shortening in the last decade, even as costs escalate

• the difficulty of maintaining good collections—or any sort of current collection—sustainably, with burdened by exploding metered licenses

• the yawning gap between what libraries pay for print vs. digital

• the disadvantages for Rhode Islanders, especially the most economically challenged, that current models create though the big publishers’ “stranglehold on libraries.”

The other side didn’t show up to provide oral testimony but provided written opposition. Of course, none of the lobbyist groups signing off (AAP of course, Authors Guild, American Booksellers, Motion Picture Association, BMI, Association of Magazine Media, etc.) are publishers of ebooks for libraries. They are there to protect the move to streaming/licenses, with libraries (and even individual consumers) being allowed to own nothing. Mustn’t let libraries unique and valuable mission of providing and preserving content create any sort of precedent to threaten their ability to milk the public coffers over and over in any format!

Their testimony of course is riddled with misinformation. Let’s look at a few quotes.

“By requiring the sale of a variety of works at below-market prices, it will lessen royalties paid to authors, directly harming their ability to earn a living from their craft.”

I count no fewer than three whoppers there:

• Whopper # 1: “below-market prices.” Really? Let’s look at a sample work, No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency

  • Available to libraries in ebook format in 2010 for $14 on PERPETUAL license

  • In 2013, the cost went up to $44.85. How did this book suddenly triple in cost? At least it was still for a perpetual license

  • Today, it is $55 for a two-year license. Now that’s putting the “lice” in license, isn’t it? Let’s jack up the price and take away the content.

  • A library could pick up a new paper edition today for about $5. But even if were a new hardcover, we’d be paying no more than about $17.

  • Library ebook cost for next 10 years: $275. The gulf between digital and print costs for libraries is astounding. How is this market price? Translation of “market price”: in digital, as opposed to print, we can charge libraries whatever because, hey, digital gives us that ability and so it must give us that right.

• Whopper # 2: “lessen royalties paid to authors.” Nope. Libraries will, if anything, spend more if we could get reasonable terms. An individual author might make less per sale but authors, plural, would make no less and probably more. How is it that you people don’t get that we don’t mind paying you, we just want fairness? You want a profit? Of course! Fine! How about a fair one? Here’s a novel idea: take advantage of the fact that digital costs less than print, give libraries a break, and watch us buy more copies and author royalties go up. And MORE authors—new authors, authors who aren’t best sellers—will benefit as we diversify our collections.

• Whopper # 3: “requiring the sale” Nope. Have you looked at the amended bill? it won’t require the sale. It won’t allow libraries to enter unfair contracts. But it won’t require sales. How is a state simply saying that its money ca no longer be spent less effectively, even profligately, “requiring a sale”?

Here’s another one , though: “We welcome, for example, discussions to ensure libraries have the funding necessary to procure and provide widespread access to robust physical and digital collections, and to ensure the citizens of Rhode Island have equitable access the technology and broadband connectivity that lets them enjoy these materials.” BS BS BS. Let’s examine this blather. Last time I checked, this funding was coming from the public coffers. Are you offering to help pay? Nah, didn’t think so. So where’s this funding coming from? Hmm, looks like the tax payer. So here’s what this really seems to be saying : “We welcome discussions that will put even more state funding into the trough at our current usurious rates.” I bet you do welcome more at the same price. Here’s a shorter version of the statement: “FEED US!”

Publishers, I can’t believe you are happy with this presentation. The phony claims of lobbyists aside, we think there is room for true negotiation and the partnership that has benefitted us both for over one hundred years. These state bills are a means. You have never negotiated, actually negotiated, fair prices. Talk with us.

The real question for those of use outside Rhode Island is, how do we help? I mean other than pursue our own legislation and spend money on publishes that do give far deals, even if that means creating a market for indie and small press works and eschewing the best seller in digital until we get what is fair to our tax payers and good for our readers? Suppose Rhode Island passes its law, there is no negotiation of terms, and their libraries don’t enter unfair contracts? Will we support them? Will we engage in a campaign to let our readers know the problem—that their ability to read library works is threatened not only by censorship challenges but by libraries’ inability to create quality sustainable digital collections? When the call comes, will we answer?

If not, then the shame is ours.

WordsRated.com: State of U.S. Public Libraries

Nick Rizzo from WordsRated.com has released a study of U.S. Public Libraries suggesting they are “more popular and digital than ever.” For this analysis, a team used the IMLS’s Public Libraries Survey (PLS) dataset. Data ran up to 2019. We may reasonably hypothesize that the intervening years have only heightened a trend that Nick has identified: the shift to digital is real, ongoing, and a vital indicator of library use and relevance.

Read the report here.

Here are the Key Findings:

Why people think “libraries are dying”

• Visits to libraries in a 10-year decline (21.20% since 2009) while people borrow fewer books (19.21% less than 2013).

Libraries are more popular than ever thanks to the strong shift to digital:

• More registered borrowers than ever (174.23 million, or 53.57% of population)

• Total library collection size is larger and more digital than ever (58.75% of collection)

• Library collection use is higher and more digital than ever (37.39% of all collection use)

More library programs (6 million) and higher program attendance (125 million) than ever:

• Library program attendance now accounts for 10.01% of all visits to libraries, up 84% from 2009

• States with the most programs per capita have more visits (88.25%), collection use (51.31%), and registered borrowers (12.21%) than states with least programs per capita

It’s never been more expensive to operate a library 

• Average operating expenses per library is $765,715 up more than 17.00% since 2014

• Libraries costs are more administrative than ever – 89.18% spent on staff and other expenses vs only 10.82% on library collections

Government funding hasn’t covered library operating expenses since 1992

• Libraries would be in a $4.38 billion deficit if relying on government funding alone

• Other Income from donations, grants, fines, and fees addressed budget deficits and helped generate a $17.05 billion budget surplus

• Highest-funded states per capita have more visits (80.99%), collection use (122.49%), programs (73.31%), and program attendance (81.76%) than the lowest-funded states

• There’s never been more libraries (17,468) or librarians (51,190), but library staff are still paid 35.07% below a livable wage for a family of three on average

It is axiomatic that public investing in libraries returns many benefits—benefits that can be quantified at many more $$ returned than spent. Thanks, Nick, for sharing your report!

Interesting Upcoming Webinars from IA

Brewster Kahle and Tony Marx: The Internet Archive at 25
The founder of the Internet Archive speaks with the President of The New York Public Library about the changing roles of libraries in the digital age.

In 1996 a young computer scientist named Brewster Kahle dreamed of building a “Library of Everything” for the digital age. A library containing all the published works of humankind, free to the public, built to last the ages. He created the Internet Archive and its mission: to provide everyone with universal access to all knowledge. “The goal of the Internet Archive,” Kahle has written, “is to create a permanent memory for the Web that can be leveraged to make a new Global Mind.” In the intervening years, libraries have evolved, expanded, and adapted to thrive in the digital age.

Where do these two stories intersect? And how have our understandings about the meaning and value of archives, libraries, and access have undergone seismic shifts in the past 25 years. Tony Marx, the President of The New York Public Library, and Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle discuss.

April 27 @ 11am PT / 2pm ET - Register now for the hybrid event.

Analyzing Biodiversity Literature at Scale
Imagine the great library of life—a comprehensive library that Charles Darwin said was necessary for the “cultivation of natural science"—but in digital form. Explore how historic scientific literature in the Biodiversity Heritage Library becomes data for the larger biodiversity community in this talk from Smithsonian Library's Martin R. Kalfatovic and JJ Dearborn.

This is the fifth session of our six-part Library as Laboratory series.

April 27 @ 11am PT / 2pm ET - Register now for the virtual event.

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!