A Follow-up on Authors for Libraries

Last Friday I posted about an open letter from Fight for the Future signed by (then) 300 authors asking for the publishers to give a better deal to libraries for digital content:

Enshrine the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format.

End lawsuits aimed at intimidating libraries and diminishing their role in society.

End smear campaigns against librarians.

The post noted that various trade associations were saying that the letter was misleading and a crypto-campaign sponsored by the Internet Archive. That latter claim rang to bizarre that I quickly, and correctly, called it phony and a smear. Now Lia Holland from Fight for the Future has gone further, calling out the Authors Guild’s lies forcefully and devastatingly.

Here are some samples, but do read the entire reply!:

The statement from the Authors Guild specifically asserts, without evidence, that “multiple authors” who signed this letter feel they were “misled”. This assertion is false and we challenge these lobbyists to either provide evidence for their claim or retract it.

One author, named in the Authors Guild statement, did ask to be removed from the letter last night just before it was published. We respected and complied with his request. But it is utterly false to claim that he never agreed to sign the letter or that we “misled” him about its contents. We have the paper trail to show as much. Any lobbyist claims to the contrary are easily, provably false and we will provide screenshots of our communications to journalists on background if requested.

Any assertion that authors are unable to read and understand this letter is condescending—the truth is that the publishing lobby must accept is that not all authors and creative workers share the common view in corporate publishing that the censorship and surveillance inherent in the maximalist copyright system they support are necessary to ensure fair compensation for creative labor.

Further, the Authors Guild appears to assert in an email to their membership that there have been various “versions” of the letter in circulation, implying that Fight for the Future fooled authors into signing one version and then disingenuously made a bunch of alterations. That assertion is wholly false. There has only ever been one version of this letter.

There are many issues in which we agree with organizations like the Authors Guild, and we hope to work together in coalition someday on important issues surrounding artists’ rights such as antitrust legislation, book bans, Amazon’s exploitation of authors, or the truly abhorrent under-compensation of authors and publishing professionals amid record profits in big publishing. For now . . . While the corporate publishing lobby would love to live in a world of monochromatic author groupthink, unfortunately today they must face once and for all that many authors disavow the idea that libraries should take a lesser role in the ownership and preservation of books in the digital age.

As part of a group whose work has been falsely labeled as supported by “Big Tech” with the aim of undermining copyright—both allegations are lies—I recommend believing Fight for the Future in this dispute. It’s shameful that various trade organizations and affiliated bloggers rely on disinformation when engaged in a defense of big publishers’ library ebook practices. Oh well, on the surface it certainly looks better for them than admitting the truth: that digital is unfairly priced because libraries currently have no right of first sale in digital and the publishers can get away with it because librarians want to meet public demand for reading.

Authors For Libraries

When I talk with members of the public about library ebooks being unfairly priced, I’m often asked “Do any writers support libraries?” I usually answer that some do, but their publishers seem to tell them that libraries ebooks are bad for their income. They naturally believe it and so don’t speak out.

I’m delighted to be able to change my answer.

Fight for the Future has published an open letter signed by over 300 authors in support of libraries and defending them against attacks by the publishing industry and its lobbyi . . . um, trade associations.

Please read the letter in its entirety to see the links supporting its positions. Here are those positions:

Enshrine the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format.

End lawsuits aimed at intimidating libraries and diminishing their role in society.

End smear campaigns against librarians.

I say “Hear hear!” to all. As someone who has been called a dupe for “Big Tech” because of my work on Maryland’s ebook law, the third point strikes a personal note. Thank you, writers, for standing up for librarians. If I were a catspaw for “Big Tech,” likely our bill would have been so legally grounded as to be unassailable and certainly the money to appeal the judge’s (wrongful, in my view) ruling would somehow have appeared. Just in case I am a dupe and stooge and simply don’t know it, though, Hey Google, how about a donation for my library! :-)

Of course the trade associations are on the attack, as reported by Andrew Albanese, “ insisting they do support public libraries, and suggesting that the letter is an Internet Archive–backed PR campaign..” If you support public libraries so much, folks, why are the digital prices for libraries so outrageously inflated when compared to print? And the suggestion that this is somehow a nefarious plot by the Internet Archive is just another baseless smear. Big publishers, I challenge you to look at our Publisher Price Watch and tell me honestly that you support libraries. You whack us because unfair laws allow you to extort money from the public coffers, knowing we are under so much pressure to provide content at any price. For once, come for fair negotiations. You won’t lose money. If anything, we’ll increase our digital spending. For the good of readers and reading, DO support us, as partners in maintaining a literate and informed populace.

It Seems Few REALLY Want to Ban Books

EveryLibrary recently conducted a poll on “Voter Perceptions of Book Bans in the United States.”

I’m not sure if they interviewed anyone in Llano, Texas or Jamestown Township, Michigan (to name just two places leading the charge to benighted theocracy—hey, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”), but it turns out most people of all political stripes think the answer to speech is always more speech:

These findings might surprise you! 

• Voters love librarians and rank librarians as twice as favorable as their governors, the Democratic Party, the GOP, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. (click to tweet)
  

• 95% of Democrats, 80% of independents, and 53% of Republicans are against book bans and will consider book bans when voting. (click to tweet)
  

• MINORITY RULE: Just 8% of voters believe “there are many books that are inappropriate and should be banned.” (click to tweet)
  

• 31% of Republicans think there is absolutely no time when a book should be banned. (click to tweet)
  

• MINORITY RULE: Only 18% of voters support book banning on issues of race and CRT. (click to tweet)
  

• More than 90% of voters are against banning the hundreds of classic novels and children's books that extremist groups have targeted for banning. (click to tweet)
  

• MINORITY RULE: Only one-third of voters support bans on books that discuss sexuality. (click to tweet)
  

• 75% of voters will consider book banning when voting in November. (click to tweet)
  

• More than 50% of voters are concerned about legislation being created to regulate Americans’ access to books. (click to tweet)

RF invites readers to read the report and support EveryLibrary and to get vocal. We have a lot more voices than the book banners. “Cry aloud, spare not; Lift up your voice like a trumpet!”

Alan Inouye's Public Policy and Advocacy Statement

ALA’s Senior Director, Public Policy & Government Relations Alan Inouye has sent a list of updates with many items of interest to library ebook aficionados:

--> Action.  Sign up for the Unite Against Book Bans campaign. It is easy to sign up. Be informed about what's happening to libraries and library workers in the book banning & censorship arenas. And take action if you can, with ALA.

https://uniteagainstbookbans.org/

 --> Action.  Congress is finalizing a budget (FY23) that includes dedicated library facilities funding for the first time in over 25 years! But the House hasn't yet signed on. Contact your Members of Congress:

https://twitter.com/LibraryPolicy/status/1570826094059859969

https://t.co/s5MyXLYVOO

--> Action.  Register your library for National Voter Registration Day, September 30.

https://twitter.com/LibraryPolicy/status/1568345028585734145

--> Upcoming.  Webinar on the future of ebook legislation with panel comprising Briana McNamee, Michael Blackwell, Irene Padilla, Kyle Courtney, and Alan Inouye. Hosted by DPLA with COSLA & ReadersFirst.

https://twitter.com/dpla/status/1570769682038403078

AP News: "Book ban efforts surging in 2022, library association says."

https://apnews.com/article/libraries-american-library-association-book-banning-af7c9f312266b572c3dc189b1d109de4

https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/ala-releases-preliminary-data-2022-book-bans

 Banned Books Week programming:  There's a lot to see and do. Check it out.

https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2022/09/american-library-association-highlights-increasing-censorship-attempts-during

 Sen. Lujan and Rep. Matsui introduce the Digital Equity Foundation Act of 2022. Quote by ALA President Lessa Kananiʻopua Pelayo-Lozada included in the Congressional release. This legislation would divert some revenue from FCC spectrum auctions to the funding of a digital equity foundation to provide grants to libraries and other eligible institutions. Currently, this revenue flows into the U.S. Treasury.

https://twitter.com/AlanSInouye/status/1570507146839863296

ALA releases highlights report of our Libraries Build Business initiative, which advances entrepreneurship and small business through libraries, especially for groups that are underrepresented in small business/entrepreneurship.

https://twitter.com/ALALibrary/status/1570136560632483840

 Pew Stateline article "Librarians and Lawmakers Push for Greater Access to E-Books" includes key librarians around the country, as well as PPA's Alan Inouye

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/09/06/librarians-and-lawmakers-push-for-greater-access-to-e-books

 ALA congratulates Scott Matheson on his appointment as the Superintendent of Documents at the Government Publishing Office. In this role, he supervises the Federal Depository Library Program.

https://twitter.com/LibraryPolicy/status/1568235593842262016

 ALA supports Congresswoman Nikema Williams' Home Internet Accessibility Act, legislation that would fund a comprehensive new plan to address nationwide broadband inaccessibility in federally assisted housing.

https://twitter.com/LibraryPolicy/status/1567962368004734978

 ALA President-elect Emily Drabinski meets with ALA Public Policy and Advocacy Office in Washington, D.C. She received two days of briefings on policy and advocacy.

https://twitter.com/LibraryPolicy/status/1570100923032272896

NEWS, ARTICLES, RESOURCES

Volunteer to serve on ALA committees (like the ones in the Public Policy & Advocacy Office). Deadline is September 30.  Also need to request renewals for an additional term of service.

https://www.ala.org/news/member-news/2022/07/volunteer-serve-ala-council-and-joint-committees-2023-2025

https://twitter.com/ALALibrary/status/1568231851109634048

 National Book Foundation:  ALA Executive Director Tracie Hall will receive the 2022 Literarian Award at the 73rd National Book Awards Ceremony.

https://twitter.com/nationalbook/status/1567518514788851712

 Over the next year, IMLS will convene an interagency taskforce & facilitate the development of a portal of resources bridging information literacy research & practice to advance information literacy within communities.

https://twitter.com/US_IMLS/status/1570453353896857602

Webinar of Interest and PEW Article

This free webinar is likely to be of interest:

Collaborating for Access: The Outlook for Library Ebook Legislation, presented by COSLA, DPLA, and ReadersFirst

Tuesday, September 27, at 1 pm ET

In this fourth in our Collaborating for Access series of webinars hosted by COSLA, DPLA, and ReadersFirst, we’ll look at the recent push for ebook legislation, and what it could mean for patron access to digital content. We’ll bring together a panel of librarians and thought leaders to discuss the progress of various legislation efforts, potential ramifications, and what might come next.

Speakers will include:

Kyle Courtney, Copyright Advisor, Harvard University and Co-founder and Board Chair, Library Futures

Alan Inouye, Senior Director, Public Policy and Government Relations, ALA

Briana McNamee, Director of Government Relations and Advocacy, New York Library Association

Irene Padilla, Maryland State Librarian

Please register here.

 PEW recently featured an article by Caitlin Dewey on the topic of library ebooks that is also likely to be of interest: Librarians and Lawmakers Push for Greater Access to E-Books | The Pew Charitable Trusts (pewtrusts.org)

The article does a good job describing the issues and explaining where efforts are now. It’s well worth a read. One statement in it, however, won’t go with comment here:

“Libraries are an important part of the copyright ecosystem as authorized distributors,” said Terrence Hart, the general counsel for the Association of American Publishers, in a statement to Stateline. “There won’t be anything to distribute if states destroy the incentives and protections of authors to license and exploit their exclusive rights to their works.”

This is a red herring. The states aren’t trying to destroy any incentives and protections. We are trying to get fair pricing. None of the bills have any issue with licensing per se. The authors may keep their rights. What we want is a print equivalent deal. For a 2 year or 30 circ license, charge the cost of the print book. (Any librarian can explain this is actually not as good an ROI as we get from a typical hardcover, with print circs greatly exceed those allowed by license terms and the added ability of giving the book to Friends groups later.) For a longer term license (maybe even perpetual), raise the price. It’s worked in print for hundreds of years and authors and publishers are fine. The publishers wish to exploit loopholes in copyright for digital to jack up prices. So shut up about “authorized distributors,” which none of the upcoming laws will challenge, and enter into fair negotiations that would make the laws unnecessary.

Fight Book Bans

Christopher Finan, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, has written an op-ed in Publishers Weekly about the need to fight the increasingly frequent and organized book challenges that are occurring in many states.

Amon other things, he writes the following:

. . . once again, the defenders of free expression and the freedom to read are fighting back. During this year’s Banned Books Week—September 18–24—librarians, booksellers, publishers, and authors will again urge the American people to reject censorship. The ALA has just launched a national campaign, Unite Against Book Bans (uniteagainstbookbans.org), to mobilize the solid majority of people who oppose efforts to remove books from schools and public libraries.

The long history of book banning in America gives us reason to hope that the freedom to read will prevail—but only if we fight for it.

Hear, hear! Ebooks are of course a censor’s dream. You can’t steal them or hide them in the stacks like you can print books (as one dogmatic, benighted, undemocratic, and know-nothing organization unworthy of being named here has advocated), but imagine being able to mobilize a community to censor a whole digital service. Thousands of books could be removed all at once. Oh the joy of telling other people what they should be able to read to suit your own narrow-minded beliefs!

RF encourages libraries to build digital bookshelves of Banned Books in their ebook platforms to celebrate Banned Books Week next week and all librarians to join Unite Against Book Bans.

It you don’t fight, someday they WILL come for your library too.

IA Events and Trial Developments

The Internet Archive is hosting some virtual events of interest.

The first, on October 12 (10am – 12pm PT—so 1 to 5 Eastern) , is Library Leaders Forum 2022. “Join experts from the library, copyright, and information policy fields for a series of conversations exploring issues related to digital ownership and the future of library collections,” including “new community developments with controlled digital lending. . . the new projects that we’re gearing up to support in 2023 and beyond.”

[Those new to the IA might also want to attend the October 11 Empowering Libraries Through Controlled Digital Lending: The Internet Archive's Open Libraries Program. Also, there is also an in-person Library Leaders Forum on the 19th]

On October 19, either in-person or virtual, is Building Democracy’s Library. “Why is it that on the internet the best information is often locked behind paywalls? Brewster Kahle, founder of The Internet Archive, believes it’s time to turn that scarcity model upside down and build an internet based on abundance. Join us for an evening event where he’ll share a new project—Democracy’s Library—a free, open, online compendium of government research and publications from around the world. Why? Because democracies need an educated citizenry to thrive.”

Speaking of Democracy’s Library, developments have occurred in the trial of one of the closest things we’ve seen so far to that, the IA Open Library. As noted by Andrew Albanese in Publishers Weekly (without whose work most of us would be less informed and the poorer for it), the AAP/Publishers and IA have traded dueling reply briefs to the others claim for summary judgement (that is, settling the matter without trial). Readers are encouraged to read the article, which nicely summarizes both sides. Briefly (very much so!), the AAP /Publishers argue that Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) isn’t legal, that the IA doesn’t even follow CDL properly because it has sometimes allowed access to more digital copies than exist in their backup print archive (violating the “owned to loaned” ratio), that the IA should have to pay damages, and that Congress alone should determine the future of digital books (I’m sure they’d like that, considering how much they pay in campaign donations). The IA responds that CDL is legitimate extension of libraries’ normal operations, that the publishers are not harmed by digital lending of what libraries legitimately own in print than they are by print lending, that the publishers are trying to restrict libraries to inefficient [and they might have added ruinously costly] modes of lending order to encourage patrons to buy rather than borrow from the library, and that the low quality scans used by the IA are not in competition with licensed ebooks.

The next round of replies is due October 7.

It seems unlikely this case will be settled in summary judgment. The judge is likely to want to see specific examples of CDL and more evidence presented in court. Could this one eventually reach the Supreme Court, since it has come differences with the Redigi precedent cited by the AAP/Publishers? Maybe, in many years. With the court’s current makeup, that might not look good for libraries. No matter what, to many libraries are using CDL well, including for ILL, for us to want to see the AAP/Publishers’ arguments prevail. Somehow, CDL must emerge as an allowed legal practice, even it it takes a defendant different than the IA. The alternative is, as the IA attorneys have said, a “world in which they [publishers] had complete control over library [digital] lending and could charge libraries for each additional circulation of a book the library already bought.” In short, a world libraries cannot afford, literally and figuratively.

How Does the Proposed PRH/SS Merger Affect Libraries?

Todd Leopold of Library Journal has written a piece exploring how the proposed merger between Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon & Schuster (SS), strongly opposed by the U.S. Department of Justice, might affect libraries and writers. The piece is well worth a read but will require non-subscribers to create a free login.

In the piece, “Josh Berk, executive director of the Pennsylvania’s Bethlehem Area Public Library. ‘That’s where my first thought goes: Here comes another price hike’.” He adds “sometimes it feels like we’re an afterthought. Publishers have a good partner in libraries. A little extra consideration would go a long way.” As the piece points out, PRH and SS currently have very similar terms. Indeed, PRH has slightly more favorable prices and a rep has said “There are no plans to change licensing agreements with libraries after the merger is complete.” But as Stephen King points out later in the article, “Consolidation is bad for competition,” he said. (Incidentally, Mr. King, though of course you’ll never read this, are you aware that your most recent audiobook will cost libraries $130.00 for a two year license? It s getting well out-of-reach for many libraries. You’ve proven yourself a great writer, and all of us would love to offer your works, but maybe you could talk with your publisher about giving libraries a more print equivalent deal?) Berk has good reason to be concerned if the deal goes through. PRH and SS may keep the same licensing terms, but that’s no guarantee prices won't go up. Indeed, as the article points out in referencing an RF post, prices are already creeping up across the board. The ALA has been sending representatives to the publishers most years since at least 2014 to talk with the then Big 6 and terms, including costs, have done nothing but get worse. If we see a Big 4 or 3 or 2 or even 1, it seems reasonable to expect price jumps, even though the Bigs have obviously never before competed for library business. We are their reliable cash cow, having to license works due to public demand, a ready source of what amounts to a government subsidy no matter what outlandish prices the licenses might be.

In the piece, Carmi Parker notes “that libraries can adjust with the times. Indie publishers have been more flexible with their ebook arrangements – one, she observed, sold their ebook for $20 with a lifetime license—and if similar measures can be put in place with the large firms, it can benefit all sides. “ But she adds, “the big publishers have to bend a little.” Over the last 18 months, she said, her library system’s costs jumped 30 percent while usage remained flat. Something will have to give. “I believe at this point that libraries must begin to vote with their dollars,” she said.”

Hear hear!

But Parker’s mention of the Indies raises a troubling point. The DOJ case was based in part on established authors being disadvantaged by making less money. Even if the resulting behemoth keeps on many SS employees, will there still be as many people reading manuscripts? Will as many contracts be offered? Will as many new voices, especially diverse voices, get the Big 5 (or 4 or whatever) boost to become established? Better license terms for libraries would certainly help us foreground new voices. PRH has pledged to diversify their offerings, and perhaps they can under a merger, but libraries should worry the overall effect will be to see less diversity and the further pushing of the best seller and commodification of the book. Parker’s emphasis on the smaller publishers and Indies may be our only viable route to sustainable collections. But it is difficult for us to drive new readers to new authors without the publishers.

Overall, if the merger goes through, the devil will as always be in the details of license terms and availability of diverse titles. We would have to see what happens. This merger nevertheless seems a bad idea from the library perspective. The DOJ has at least presented a good case.

An NPR Interview: How Should [Library] Ebooks Be priced?

The NPR’s Indicator From Planet Money recently released a podcast about library ebook lending and the Internet Archive use of Controlled Digital Lending.

One person interviewed is Carmi Parker, Whatcom County Library System ILS Administrator. [Disclaimer—Carmi is a member of RF’s Working Group and instrumental in library digital content advocacy.]

You may listen to the podcast here and instead (or as well) see a transcript here.

The podcast’s hosts banter can sometimes be a little trying, but overall they do a good job exploring the issues. I wish they had been more rigorous in their exploration of some points. For example, AAP counsel is able to say "the Internet Archive is not a real library. It only masquerades as one.” The AAP doesn’t have any authority to define what libraries are; his unsubstantiated claim, which should be dismissed out-of-hand as mere legal posturing, should either not have been included or at least an explanation of what a library IS should have been demanded. On the matter of publisher ebook prices, however, the presenters present Carmi ‘s point faithfully and well.

RF encourages a listen or review of the transcript And the more attention paid to the plight of libraries and library readers, the better!

Costs Are Rising (What A Surprise)

My fellow librarians concerned about how exploding licenses at high costs are making our digital collections unsustainable, we have further bad news. Costs are going up. It isn’t the case with every publisher, but the overall trend is clear. One librarian in our Working Group noted that the price-per-unit for HarperCollins titles had increased 24% for ebooks and 6% for eaudio. So much for HC being our best deal, as they seem to be joining the race to the bottom. Another colleague provided still more data:

In ebooks, PRH’s 24 month cost is slightly down (offset unfortunately by an increase in the 12 month price). That at least is good news. One of Hachette’s imprints has decreased 5.56%, while one Macmillan imprint has decreased a nice 8.83%. That’s pretty much the end of the good news, however, with overall costs going up by over 15%. HC leads the pack with a 31% increase in price-per-unit cost.

In digital audiobooks, the beat (as in, let’s beat up the libraries) goes on in both metered and perpetual access, with the Recorded Books and Tantor posting huge percentage increases.

Granted this is a limited survey (so far—we’ll be adding more results). It occurs in a time of inflation in many prices. But have costs for producing digital media really escalated that much? And this library works with a large collection and its results are likely representative, as we shall establish with more evidence. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the publishers are treating libraries, which face even more patron pressure to provide titles in times of economic difficulty, as a cash cow

RF to the publishers: if you aim is to lower library circulation, keep it up. You’ll succeed. How happy will you be with less author/title discovery? Will it really lead to more individual sales? Will more reading result?

Doubt it.