Wither Reading? A WordsRated Study

Nick Rizzo from WordsRated has posted about a 2022 study of American reading habits. Based on a survey including members of Gen Z, Millenials, Gen X, and Boomers, the study casts a cold eye on the future of reading as a pastime.

The study differs from some industry (or perhaps library) survey in that it excludes listening to audiobooks and counts a book as read only if has been finished.

A few of the findings:

• More Americans have not read a book in the past year than have read one

• Nearly a quarter of Americans haven’t read a book in the last three years, while over 10% haven’t read one in the last decade

• Fewer younger people are reading, and they read less than older Americans, with the average Boomer completing nearly three times as many books in the last year than the average Gen Z respondent.

The study does not look at causes. Based on observation, one might speculate that other activities are supplanting reading among younger respondents, including gaming, social media, streaming video, perhaps audiobooks, and different learning styles being privileged in schools. This is not to attack the choices of younger people. It does suggest, however, what ReadersFirst has warned previously: that “we are approaching what could be a crisis in the book industry.”

The study suggests one bright spot: that people who finish even one book in a year often then read still more, having a reading habit in which they will continue. In light of its other findings, the study is perhaps overly optimistic in concluding “The silver lining in the data is that all it appears to take is 1 book. If we can convince people to pick up and read one book, they are significantly more likely to catch the reading bug and carry on from there.” Convincing people to pick up even the one appears to be getting more and more difficult.

Publishers making ebooks available through libraries—not all, and we thank those who are true partners—often point to a lack of “friction” as a justification for what libraries consider unreasonable terms. They aver it is just “too easy” for people to get titles. Why, people don’t even have to go to the library! Let us ignore for now the many “frictions” that are in place—lack of availability of many titles due to long waiting lists, lack of user technological ability, libraries putting limits on the number of titles borrowed to keep within budget—not to mention that most library ebook readers also avidly visit libraries and get far more book in print form.

Let us look instead at how this so-called reason is bad for authors and publishers. If reading as a pastime is to have a future, we need LESS friction and MORE people reading—even just one book. Libraries help create and sustain readers. Not to worry, publishers—they will discover books through us and buy. Isn’t it time to try something new—give libraries reasonable ebook terms and at least see if we can’t generate reading? It’s your livelihood but it is ours, too. Libraries still mean books. Without them, in print and digital, our programs, web access points, maker spaces, and hundreds of educational and social services will not create enough visits to justify our existence. Negotiate with us. Long term, we might both win (though it will take work having the reading bug be catching in the future) . . . but separate, we shall surely lose. And reading will wither.

A ReadersFirst Position Paper: "Elending Legislation"

Why have eight states (with more in the planning stages) put forward legislation to address library digital content licensing? What do they hope to gain? Pushback from various lobbying groups has been strong and has included some, um, interesting claims, for example that librarians are in league with Big Tech to destroy copyright, that the legislation will harm publisher and author profit and royalties, that library lending is hurting publisher sales, and conversely that library lending is so healthy that nothing could possibly be amiss in the digital market place. Is there any merit in these counter claims?

Various ReadersFirst posts have addressed these questions in the past. Thanks to Carmi Parker, however, we now have a single position paper that gathers the many skeins. You may visit our Position Paper page to download or get it directly here.

This paper does not speak for everyone in libraries and the various legislatures involved. Whatever bizarre theories may emerge about a non-existent “Big Library” coordinating efforts nationally, we are simply not that organized. Our various activities are much more grass roots, with librarians talking to legislators, who see see the facts and determine that something be done. The paper does, however, set out the need for change and discredits many of the claims made by those opposing the various legislative efforts. Librarians will be inspired by the arguments for print-equivalent digital pricing and perhaps work with their legislatures to effect change. Legislators at the state and federal level will find ample justification for action here, though examples from their states will certainly be an added reason. Authors and publishers may perhaps understand WHY libraries are advocating and also perhaps see that negotiation of terms may be beneficial for all. At 31 pages, the paper does require some careful and sustained attention. ReadersFirst hopes you find it enlightening and bracing.

Maryland Ebook Lawsuit Outcome

As noted by Andrew Albanese and many other outlets, a final order has been issued in the Maryland Ebook Law hearing.

"In its February 16, 2022 memorandum opinion, the Court determined that the Maryland Act likely conflicts with the Copyright Act in violation of the Supremacy Clause," Boardman's opinion reads. "Although neither AAP nor the State has moved for summary judgment on any claim, they agree a declaratory judgment may be entered... Therefore, for the reasons stated in the February 16, 2022 memorandum opinion, the Court finds that the Maryland Act conflicts with and is preempted by the Copyright Act. The Act 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'”

A permanent injunction has not been issued. Albanese notes that one aspect remains: "The only outstanding issue is AAP’s request for an award of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees," the footnote states, adding that the AAP "has advised the Court that the parties intend to brief whether AAP is entitled to fees and costs under those statutes." Oh, the AAP wants Maryland tax payers to shell out money when they advocate for more tax payer money for ebooks? It is of course in keeping with their actions all along.

AAP President and CEO Maria Pallante is of the opinion that this outcome will discourage other states.

She is of course wrong.

This ruling is not a precedent for another court, which may rule differently. And other laws may be tweaked to try a different path to get the publishers in the mood to negotiate—the only real intention of the Maryland law in the first place.

In the meantime, the Authors Guild has weighed in: “The Authors Guild has long been a champion of increasing funding to libraries so they can purchase more digital licenses they need to serve their patrons and communities – a far better method of ensuring libraries can acquire robust collections than controlling ebook and audiobook prices.

Talk about wrong! In a time of inflation, with libraries not seeing funding increases and struggling to meet expenses of all kinds, do these people really expect extra ebook funding? Who is going to provided it? The Authors Guild? What a joke. These lobbyists clearly have no idea of how libraries struggle.

It is of course very generous of the Authors Guild to propose that we get more money so that we can continue to pay the bloodsucking usurious rates the big publishers charge for library ebooks. Just look at our Publisher Price Watch. Need any more evidence that licenses for items we don’t even own and can keep for limited times are UNREASONABLE? I would actually be ashamed to ask for more under the given terms. “Dear legislators, please give us more ebook money so we can continue to pay exorbitant costs.”

We are fortunate in that a ruling may be different if a similar bill becomes law and is challenged. Libraries uphold copyright, but the publishers are using developments in book lending to evade the advantages we have under copyright and to disadvantage libraries with unreasonable digital prices.  Half a billion downloads may have occurred last year, but two issues remain.  First, as costs goes up—as most costs for libraries currently are--and library funding remains static, what we have achieved in the past will no longer be sustainable. And it isn’t any use for these lobbyists to glibly say they support libraries getting more funding. The only way publishers can help is price negotiation to reduce costs to something like print equivalency. Second, the current pricing models are bad for the publishing industry as well as for libraries, preventing the discovery of new and often more diverse authors. As increasing costs pressures and the unfair rates drive down our ability to provide content, a premium will be placed on only high circulating content. We will have to seek other ways to deliver diverse content as the publishers price themselves out of the library market, abandoning their partnership with libraries to the detriment of readers, their writers, and ultimately their bottom line as reading gradually but continually declines as a leisure activity.

We have limited funding. We really want the content, but only on reasonable terms. We continue to hope for publisher negotiation—real negotiation!—of terms. Until that happens, state—and, yes, other!—efforts will continue. It is the only responsible thing to do, for our states and for our readers.   

CDL Suit Moving Into Summary Judgement Phase

As reported today by Andrew Albanese in Publishers Weekly, the judge in the AAP/Publishers lawsuit against the Internet Archive (IA) has agreed to hear summary judgement motions. Based on these motions, the court can decide the outcome of the case without going to trial.

As Albanese points out, attorneys for the IA argue that Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) is covered under fair use. A library takes a print book it owns, create a digital copy, archives the print copy, and circulates the digital copy as if it were print under copyright. The own-to-loan ratio of 1-1 remains the same. The digital copy is protected to prevent unauthorized duplication and it is loaded for a limited time, hence the “controlled” aspect of the lending.

They argue that “To the extent that the feared market harms are the very same ones that would flow from handing a particular copy to a library patron, or mailing it to them, rather than lending that copy digitally, those harms are not ones that copyright takes into account. Every copy Internet Archive lends out was bought from the publishers, and it is not fair to demand that libraries pay again to lend the copy they already own.”

They continue to say that libraries must be given the ability to implement CDL legally and the case is of landmark importance because it “will shape how libraries continue to serve the public interest in the digital age.”

Attorneys for the AAP/Publishers counter that the IA is not a library but rather a “massive copyright infringement enterprise.” They further contend, as Albanese explains, that CDL “has no basis in law” and that "the creation of an e-book from a print book falls under the author’s exclusive right to create derivative works.”

This first point is dubious. Calling names doesn’t make a legal argument. On what basis is the IA not a library? It has collected and owns print books that it has digitized, and it is lending those titles without profit. How is that not a library? Were the Institutional and Social Libraries of the 1800’s not libraries? Is my ebook collection somehow more a library than the IA because I have had to license (generally at exorbitant rates when compared to print) titles rather than digitize print? If I digitized print books as a public library, would the digitization somehow make those titles “non-library”? If name calling is the best that these folks can do, we could hope for a summary judgement against them. A trial seems a more likely outcome.

This second point is correct to the extent that CDL has not been legally settled previously, though misleading if it aims to suggest that strong arguments for its legal basis have not been posited. Of course, this is precisely what this lawsuit is about. It isn’t at bottom about the IA’s Open Library. It is about CDL, and CDL itself at stake. Libraries all over the country have a stake in the outcome. Even as we work on laws to make licensing terms more fair, we have to hope that this second prong of our (very much uncoordinated) efforts is validated. Our ability to share millions of works that the publishers will never digitize (since they won’t make money) fairly and sustainably hangs in the balance.

It Isn't Just U.S.

Thanks to Gary Price of InfoDocket for picking up a podcast from Ireland.

Sean Moncrieff’s podcast is described as follows: “Irish libraries are facing a crisis due to the extortionate cost of eBooks. President of The Library Association of Ireland Cathal McCauley, told Sean [that] Irish libraries are encountering an uphill battle to remain feasible due to ‘scandalous’ price increases, restrictive licensing terms, and a lack of availability where eBooks are concerned.”

The points sound familiar:

Libraries are not offered ebooks in every case

If the are offered, prices are often “scandalous.”

At this cost, libraries still don’t even own but only license, with many restrictions

Prices have gone up during the pandemic

Large publishers have the most egregious terms

No rationale has ever been offered for these prices

The mission of the library is threatened in the current digital ecosystem, as prices become unsustainable in a time of increasing demand.

It is depressing and yet unsurprising to hear these points made internationally. Publishers are apparently the same all over the world: stick it to libraries on ebooks because they can. Call it the litany of wrongs. And it ain’t just being said in the U.S.A.

ReadersFirst Presents the Publisher Price Watch

The cost of digital content has of course been much in the library news for a decade, and longer. Ten years ago bestselling titles might often not be available in digital form to libraries, with some larger publishers not opening their catalogs. Titles that were available could, however, often be licensed perpetually at near print retail cost or sometimes less. Librarians were unhappy—justifiably so—at being closed out of the market. In a way, however, those truly were the good old days. Imagine paying $13 to $18 for a perpetual license ebook from a large publisher today! No, prices rose, often across the board, in 2013 or so. Then things got worse. With the 2018 shift away from a perpetual to a metered model, we have not only higher prices but shorter access periods. Librarians have asked for negotiations and been given the brushoff. We’ve tried, and are trying, state legislation to enact change, so far without success, though that effort is far from over and will continue. Content cost is the driving factor in what might be termed open rebellion. We can live with metered, even though perpetual access and even ownership has advantages that we must continue to advocate for. Price is all, especially the price compared to the Return on Investment (“Bang for Book”) we get from print. A high price for something we can offer long-term often provides a better ROI than a lesser cost short-term license. But what exactly are the typical costs we pay from larger publishers when compared to print? It’s time to take in-depth look. Librarians need to know how publishers compare with each other, although of course we will often be forced to license from some at usurious rates due to public demand for their titles. We also need detailed and accurate information to present to legislators when we work with them to get better terms, having little other choice than government action due to publisher intransigence. And thus ReadersFirst unveils the Publisher Price Watch.

Created by Carmi Parker and the team at Whatcom County Library System, with feedback from the ReadersFirst Working Group and others, Publisher Price Watch (PPW) shows what we pay on average to license digital from larger publishers compared to print based on may examples. This is just the first iteration. Over time, we will add more publishers and update data on the existing ones. Watch the space for more. If you are a librarian or employee working for a non-profit and want to be involved, there is place on the page for you to express your interest.

Speaking of non-profit, ReadersFirst is all-volunteer and completely non-commercial. We don’t take money from advertisers. We, like ConsumerReports, can thus give fair and unbiased ratings to the publishers’ digital offerings, based upon comparative print costs. For now, none are a “Good Buy,” but some do better than others. Aren’t the ones offering better deals worth a larger share of our funding? Those at the high (and less) fair end of the scale will, we know, get some our money even though their prices are terrible. That is why the fight for farness most go on. In the interim, those publishers will at least see that we KNOW their prices are unfair . . . and are happy to let the public know as well.

Enjoy the Publishers Price Watch!

The Palace Project Adds Overdrive Titles

Lyrasis has put our a press release announcing that ebook and digital audiobook content libraries get through OverDrive will now also launch in the Palace app. OverDrive thus joins Bibliotheca’s Cloud Library, Baker & Taylor’s Axis 360, and other apps in making content available through the “one app to rule them all.”

Atlanta, GA - June 1, 2022. LYRASIS, a global nonprofit committed to increasing equitable access to knowledge, and The Palace Project, the nonprofit library-centered platform and ereader app for digital content and services, are pleased to announce that OverDrive content will soon be available in the Palace app. This addition will bring the largest provider of library ebooks into The Palace Project platform, allowing libraries to deliver the majority of their ebooks and audiobooks from multiple vendors through a single app.

Informed by librarians and supported by a multi-year, multi-million dollar investment from the Knight Foundation, The Palace Project is a division of LYRASIS in strategic partnership with the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA). The Palace Project is designed to support libraries as they work to expand their digital offerings to their communities. The Palace Project mobile app, available for iOS and Android, allows libraries to serve all their econtent to patrons in one easy-to-use interface, while protecting patron privacy and data.

“We extend a big thanks to OverDrive for working with The Palace Project,” said Michael Blackwell, project manager for The Palace Project’s launch in Maryland and Chair of ALA’s Ebook Interest Group. “Having OverDrive’s industry-leading content selection and its powerful advocacy for libraries joined with Palace’s ability to seamlessly integrate content from other platforms will create a rich and easy user experience for readers and be especially beneficial for libraries with multiple content providers.”

“OverDrive is a crucial provider of digital content and adding them to The Palace Project is a major win for public libraries,” says Michele Kimpton, Global Senior Director of The Palace Project. “We believe that by bringing OverDrive and Palace together, we’ll be able to get even more content in the hands of library patrons everywhere.”

Libraries currently using The Palace Project will be able to access their OverDrive titles in the app in the coming weeks, and OverDrive titles will remain accessible in the Libby app as well. To find out more information on The Palace Project or how to get started email info@thepalaceproject.org.

Palace is currently the only platform offering excusive Amazon content and will soon offer Audible. The open source software can be deployed through a third-party vendor at reasonable rates. Libraries looking for access to this content, especially jf they already have multiple vendors, may find taking a look at Palace helpful.

Kyle Courtney on the Curtailing of Library Digital Lending

In an Op-Ed in The Hill, Kyle Courtney persuasively argues for the legality under existing copyright laws of Controlled Digital Lending and calls attention to publisher and lobbyist efforts to gut libraries’ ability to circulate digital materials. Here are a few highlights:

[T]he Internet Archive makes digital copies of physical books already in its collection and then lends them to patrons over the internet. Importantly, the Internet Archive lends each digital copy to only one patron at a time. When that person returns the book, it’s available to the next one who wants it. That’s the “controlled” part, and as most will recognize, it is exactly how libraries lend physical books.

It’s also perfectly legal. The law is already quite clear on this. Through the first sale and fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law, Congress long ago gave libraries and archives the ability to lend books they purchase for their collections. Through fair use, they created a flexible right to amplify modern technological uses. Congress placed value on helping libraries carry out their mission of supplying community access to materials for research, scholarship and study. Without these legal superpowers, it’s hard to imagine how libraries and archives would operate.

Alleging “piracy” and suppression of their book sales, America’s biggest book publishers have sued the Internet Archive for its use of controlled digital lending. (Arguments for the case begin this summer.) Ostensibly, the publishers are asking the court to force the Internet Archive to shutter its digital lending and to destroy its entire collection of 1.4 million digital books. But it’s clear they’re also using this case as a battering ram against controlled digital lending in order to generate more licensing of their e-books.

Courtney does well to draw attention to the “publishers’ longer and broader strategy to exert greater control over libraries through digital content.” Indeed, the strategy has been embraced by more than just traditional book publishers, as the appeal to New York’s governor to veto that state’s library ebook bill suggests. Lobbyists representing content providers in movies, television, music, radio, and even advertising piled on even though nothing about the bill directly impacted those media. So what the reason? The answer is simple: streaming and licensing allow them to use advances in technology to bypass copyright/ownership by individuals as well as libraries. One might seem to be able to get content perpetually on a streaming platform, but it is illusory. One can rent or “buy” movies, for example, on Amazon. But one can never own the material. One can only license it. And access is only guaranteed by paying monthly or annual platform fees. This new business model must, it seems, be fought for even when not directly threatened. Who knows what might happen if publishers had to give libraries fair digital prices? It could, or so it seems at least in the media companies’ fevered nightmares, snowball and threaten the whole scheme.

Let’s not, however, lose sight of Courtney’s point about libraries. The AAP/publisher lawsuit against the Internet Archive the the spearpoint of a larger thrust to keep libraries paying usurious and unfair short-term license fees in order to share content digitally. Libraries’ mission is threatened in an increasingly digital world. It is high time to give codify libraries’ right, rewriting the grossly unfair DMCA. Are any federal legislators willing to benefit their most need constituents rather than just let the international mega-corps get richer and richer? Until then, thanks to the IA for fighting a battle library readers cannot afford to be lost.

DPLA, COSLA, and RF: Collaborating for Access: Book Challenges in a Digital World

In this third in our Collaborating for Access series of webinars hosted by COSLA, DPLA, and ReadersFirst, we’ll look at what the current political environment of increased book challenges means for digital content. What opportunities are available for libraries to use digital materials to maintain access, and in what ways are digital content and the libraries providing it open to unique attacks across the political spectrum? We’ll bring together a panel of librarians and thought leaders to discuss the ramifications of challenges in the digital world and look at potential solutions digital access may provide.

The session is Tuesday, June 7, at 1 pm ET

Please register here.

Speakers will include librarians from New York Public Library, North Dakota, and Kentucky.

Because much library digital content is accessed through a vendor/app, it is a dream-come-true for would-be censors. Imagine being able to remove public access to thousands of books with the flick of a single toggle. Join us for a lively and sometimes frightening discussion. Fahrenheit 451 is not an impossible future.

U.S. Book Show: Libraries Are Essential

On May 24 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern), the “Libraries are Essential” track of the U.S. Book Show may be viewed online.

Here’s a link to the program:   https://usbookshow.com/libraries-are-essential/

Librarians, it is free to you, should you wish to watch.

 Topics include:  Libraries are not neutral, the politicization of libraries, the movement for digital equity, protecting library workers after the pandemic, and library leadership in the post-pandemic new normal, with closing keynote by Maryland’s Congressional Representative Jamie Raskin.

Not surprisingly, digital content enters into the discussion.

Enjoy!