Are We Scared Yet? Probably Should Be . . .

Thanks to Mr. Andrew Albanese for his usual clear and fair reporting on library matters and to Raymond Garcia and the good folks at the ALA for documenting a “92 Percent Increase In Number of Titles Targeted for Censorship Over The Previous Year.”

Garcia notes that key trends emerged from “1,247 demands to censor library books, materials, and resources in 2023”:

• Pressure groups in 2023 focused on public libraries in addition to targeting school libraries. The number of titles targeted for censorship at public libraries increased by 92 percent over the previous year; school libraries saw an 11 percent increase.

• Groups and individuals demanding the censorship of multiple titles, often dozens or hundreds at a time, drove this surge.  

• Titles representing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals made up 47 percent of those targeted in censorship attempts. 

• There were attempts to censor more than 100 titles in each of these 17 states: Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

This is frightening, and yet let us be concerned rather than fearful. I take courage from the FLA “stop woke act” recently being blocked and hope that the brave parents, writers, PEN America/PRH suit against Escambia County ends with a knockout of the banners.  If FLA takes it on the chin, it will empower pushback against the banning movement nationally. It seems every time ill-considered bills like this go to court, the banners lose, and respect for the Constitution prevails. We wish those pushing book bans the same losses in all upcoming legal challenges.

It might be a good time to consider support for the following (note, RF has no affiliation with and is not supported by these groups):

PEN America: The Freedom to Write

EveryLibrary

Unite Against Book Bans

People for the American Way, Grandparents for Truth

NEA Stop School Books Bans

The Foundations for these libraries are supporting Books Unbanned:

• Brooklyn Public Library

• Boston Public Library

• LA County Public Library

• San Diego Public Library

• Seattle Public Library

Our friends at DPLA are doing great work with the Banned Book Club.

RF is all about the library digital content experience, but that experience may not happen in many places if undemocratic and unconstitutional banning prevails. Speaking of which, if you live in Maryland, please write in support of the Freedom to Read Act. Our libraries, academic, school, and public, need you.

Important Op-Ed from Connecticut Legislators

In “Publishers have libraries in a bind. We’ve got a novel solution,“ state representatives (and bill sponsors) Matt Blumenthal and Eleni Kavros DeGraw clearly set out the need for fair ebook laws.

The whole article is worth a read, but let’s do a summary to appreciate their understanding of the issues.

“[T]the “Big 5” publishers that own more than 80 percent of the book market are trying to balance their books on our libraries’ backs. . . . But with [Big 5] e-books, you don’t own the book — you own a contract. And reading the publishers’ fine print for library contracts would make your eyes pop out of your head.” Yes. Licenses aren’t ipso facto bad, but all too often the devil in the ebooks details is quite real.

The biggest issue is of course the cost: ”Other e-books are even more expensive. You can buy David Kahn’s “The Codebreakers” on Amazon for $59.99. The library price for a single copy: $239.99 for two years. For 20? A staggering $2,399.90.”

But other problems are enumerated, and here the authors extend their critique beyond the Big 5 to take on some academic publishers:

“E-book licenses also bar libraries from lending e-books through their interlibrary loan systems. They restrict how many copies of an e-book a library can obtain. They prohibit academic libraries from keeping nonpublic preservation copies for their records. And perhaps most perversely, they require libraries to keep the terms of their agreements secret, preventing them from shopping around — or banding together — to negotiate a better deal on behalf of their patrons and the taxpayers. These restrictions don’t just waste taxpayer dollars: they interfere with libraries’ core mission by preventing them from building catalogs of popular authors, handcuffing their lending activities, and depriving the public of access to books.”

Yes! “Imagine if a town repaved a road, and the road disappeared after 26 cars drove over it. If someone asked us to authorize such a wasteful expenditure of public resources, we’d throw the book at them.”

They argue that librarians often feel obligated to get these expensive titles due to demand, are restricted from shopping around, and are indeed in a bind. They have put forward two bills to help: H.B. 5312 and S.B. 148.

They go on to demolish opposing arguments:

• That authors won’t be paid fairly—in fact, libraries will still pay fair prices and if anything, offer more money in digital to more authors.

• That the bills are pre-empted by federal copyright. That may have been true of an earlier Maryland law, but we’ve learned for that one. Current library bills are based on state procurement and consumer protection. The bills “impose no obligation on publishers whatsoever.” The publishers can either deal fairly or not deal at all—the choice is up to them.

The piece ends with a call for Connecticut residents to support the bills so that they “can be inscribed in our law books and help our libraries provide more titles on fairer terms. That would be a win in everybody’s book.”

RF hopes that Connecticut will answer the call and extends a huge thank you to these legislators for their support of libraries. So many legislators understand that some of the larger publishers are taking advantage of licensing law to deny fair terms to libraries, even though copyright has created a balance that has allowed publishers, libraries, and readers to fair well and “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”

Go Connecticut! And may many other states follow.

Important Advocacy from Library Futures

Library Futures has launched the ebooksforus site, creating a fun way to explore a problem that is very far from fun: the Big 5 Publishers’ (and many other publishers of academic texts) unfair licensing terms for libraries, terms which are making the sharing of digital content unsustainable for academic, school, and public libraries.

The site has comics and games. The games help teach lessons about the unfair terms and will certainly surprise the public if not librarians familiar with the problem. The cost, “exploding licenses,” restrictive terms, and sharing of library readers’ checkouts all get enjoyable treatment, while links to articles provide background information. Some good template state ebook legislation is provided. A link to the ebookstudygroup, where Kyle Courtney and Juliya Ziskina will customize state legislation, is helpful. The site is well-worth a visit. RF hopes that it will become part of a larger campaign to bring further attention to the need to change state, and ultimately federal laws to give library readers a fair shake. Libraries DO pay for this content, generally much more than the print equivalents. We’d just like the strangle loopholes that allow us to be hijacked for digital to be closed in the name of fairness for readers, many of whom don’t have the wherewithal to buy every book they'd like to read. Copyright has allowed print to flourish for hundreds of year at fair prices. Digital should be offered at equivalent rates.

[Full disclosure: the site points to research posted by ReadersFirst and some of the articles cite quotations from some of our members.]

Meanwhile it is [always] worth mentioning that while we fight for fair licenses, an even larger conflict rages—one in which publishers and librarians are allies: book banning. In “Book Banning Goes Digital: Libraries Suspending Their E-Book Services and the Complications It Poses for First Amendment Doctrine,” Catherine E. Ferri explores how the efforts to ban ebook services complicates First Amendment freedoms to read. RF has long noted that ebooks are a censor’s dream: imagine the joy they would feel taking out thousands of books at once, even if they would miss the pleasure they get from burning physical books. Check out the article. From the abstract:

However, a number of conservative states are attempting to restrict e-book services via legislation or blanket suspensions. This Note aims to make sense of e-book services and book banning against the backdrop of the First Amendment. Part I argues e-book services should be considered extensions of public libraries and public school libraries. It draws analogies from other, more established areas of law to propose e-book services are a part of the library under a nexus theory or another theory of government reliance. Part II argues banning or suspending a full e-book service is comparable to banning or suspending access to a whole section of the library to target one book—a violation of the First Amendment because it is politically motivated viewpoint discrimination.

More importantly, join the fight! If you live in one of the many states with a Freedom to Read bill, advocate for it. If you live in a state trying to legislate against the Freedom to Read, advocate against it and share the important digital efforts to subvert censorship, Books Unbanned and the Banned Book Club. No one has to read a book, but no one should be able to tell others what they can and can’t read.

Unlimited Listens

RF is always interested in license arrangements that offer value for libraries, especially as rising costs make digital increasingly difficult to sustain for many libraries.

We therefore pass along news from Unlimited Listens:

Unlimited Listens & The Palace Project

Delaware based Unlimited Listens, LLC is launching a genre based audiobook program to U.S. Public libraries in partnership with The Palace Project. The initial offering will feature over 3,500 titles.

The catalog includes Christian, Classics, Children’s, Westerns and Clean Romance titles from a portfolio of more than 60 publishers. More than 50 titles per month will be added to the Unlimited Listens offering.

Unlimited Listens plans to offer Spanish, Self-development, and other catalog verticals by Q4.

Unlimited Listens offers the library a tremendous value with its unlimited access subscription model. Subscriptions through the Palace Project app start as little as $500.

To learn more please visit booth #517 during the upcoming PLA conference in Columbus

They have a website with some details.

The ability to offer unlimited simultaneous access for a reasonable cost, especially without having to pay for every use, is attention grabbing in the day of $135 for two year/1user at a time audiobooks. This could be a great content addition for libraries that use Palace, and yet another reason to consider the Palace app. Patrons may not find the latest best seller this way, but the fare has the prospect of attracting audiences looking for inspirational and Spanish titles. RF will try to post a titles list. If you are going to PLA, Booth #517 seems well worth a stop.

Webinar of Interest

Please consider joining us for a (free!) webinar:

Collaborating for Access: Libraries and Independent Authors

Thursday, February 1, 2024, at 3p ET

At our seventh in the Collaborating for Access series of webinars presented by COSLA, DPLA and ReadersFirst, we’ll look at ways libraries can drive discovery of and benefit from the inclusion of self-published titles in their collections. Highlights will include a look at the Indie Author Project, the Indie Catalog Selection in Palace Marketplace, and insights from library leaders and independent authors themselves.

Speakers will include:

Tyora Moody, Independent Author

Nash Steele, BiblioLabs Indie Author Project

Miriam Tuliao, DPLA Curation Corps

Kelvin Watson, Executive Director, Las Vegas-Clark County Library District

Moderated by Michael Blackwell, ReadersFirst

Please register here.

Toward a digital library ownership model

If priced fairly—a HUGE if—licensing of library digital content is useful and even helpful. But all too often, libraries end up having to re-license books they have already paid for once, or twice, or even many times, often under ruinous terms, at least when compared to our ROI in print. Are you tired of the paying over and over, of the keeping track of what and how often you’ll need to renew, and of seldom being able actually to EXPAND your digital collection?

Me too!

That’s why this news from the Digital Public Library of America of an ownership model is so welcome. Here’s a link to the full story—well worth a read!—and here’s the most important part of today’s announcement from the DPLA’s Micah May:

While the intellectual case for library ownership is strong, practical solutions have been difficult to come by. In particular, few libraries have the capacity, or interest, in building the tech infrastructure required to host hundreds of thousands of ebooks. Thankfully, one thing has changed since library ownership was first pioneered a decade ago: We now have a library-driven platform for management and delivery of e-content, The Palace Project. Having heard the renewed interest from libraries in ownership of digital content, we set out to explore whether The Palace Project platform could offer a solution.

In short, in the model we are developing, libraries would own the titles, just as they do with physical books. Libraries would be able to both transfer their books to other libraries and to update books as needed for preservation or to adapt to new formats. Rights holders would retain copyright to their works and all subsidiary rights. Lending would be restricted to one reader at a time with Digital Rights Management (DRM) unless waived by the rights holder.  We would also provide libraries the option of hosting their books in Palace Marketplace or another provider.

We are developing this model through conversations with a number of leading librarians and legal experts, including at a workshop this fall convened at NYU by Jennie Rose Halperin of Library Futures. We have also been discussing this model with publishers and book distributors; while these conversations are in an early stage, we are buoyed by the feedback we are receiving. We hope to be able to roll out an implementation of this model in the first half of 2024. If you’d like to talk more about digital ownership or The Palace Project, please reach out to me at micah@dp.la.

A variety of fairly priced models, with ownership, metered licensing, and subscriptions/pay-per-use could help libraries use their limited $$$ wisely. Owning might, for example, perhaps initially cost more but allow for long-term preservation while short-term demand would be met by other options. Ownership could make many purchases that seem less viable under licensing seem attractive, bringing greater attention to newer, perhaps more diverse authors. Publishers, we won’t spend less if you give us better deals. Why not try something new?

More Whoppers from the AAP

MassLive’s Alison Kuznitz has explored Massachusetts’ efforts to enact a law for fair library ebook pricing in “Publishers look to make edits to Mass. lawmaker’s E-book access bill.”

RF commends State Rep. Ruth Balser for her efforts to give library users a fair shake in a market that is all-too unfair.

As usual, the Association Of American Publishers (AAP) have provided opposing testimony riddled with falsehoods.

Here are the claims, according to the article: “the proposals conflict with the U.S. Copyright Act, which protects the distribution of literary works among authors and publishers. Authors would not be properly compensated and intellectual property would be devalued should the bills move forward” ‘They [ebooks] can be easily copied, made perfect copies, made unlimited number of copies, that publishers approach their licensing of e-books to libraries for digital lending in a different way than physical books’.”

How are these lies? Let us count the ways.

Conflict with the U.S. Copyright Act? Nope. As explained by Authors Alliance Dave Hansen, in the article: “This bill does no such thing -- it’s carefully and narrowly crafted. It doesn’t compel publishers to license. Instead, it merely provides that Massachusetts and its contract law will not be used to aid publishers in their efforts to limit libraries’ rights.” Publishers can publish what they want and charge what they want. They just can’t license in this state except under fair terms. Saying this law would be a violation of copyright doesn’t make it so.

Authors not compensated? Nonsense. If we could get fair terms, librarians would if anything license more. MORE authors are likely to be compensated,, especially authors who may not be best-sellers, as libraries get more varied and deeper content. The income would simply be distributed differently, but the total amount of income might well grow. Possibly readers would discover—and ultimately buy—more books. Publishers could easily ensure more authors were compensated. Don’t blame libraries for your greed.

Intellectual property would be devalued. No, costs would simply reflect what publishers get from print in libraries rather than the inflated prices of the current unfair licensing.

Piracy from library ebooks? Ha ha ha ha ha! Bogus! Piracy is a problem, but please show us how it stems from library ebooks. They are digitally protected and the people borrowing them don’t need to pirate. I could claim that if publishers offered fair terms, there would be less piracy because more people would borrow legitimately with as much authority as the AAP can cry piracy. I won’t make that claim. There’s no proof. But please show proof of instances of piracy stemming from library ebooks. I’ll wait.

How can anyone believe these transparently weak claims?

Here’s one last one: “This legislation threatens the entire creative economy.” No. This legislation would stop the plutocratic international mega-corporations that control publishing, too often at the expense of creators, from ripping off libraries and trying to drive readers from libraries and force them to pay for books they will never really own.

Good on you, Massachusetts!

Books Aren't Being Banned?

The American Library Association sent an email saying a witness at a congressional hearing claimed “books aren’t being banned.” It seemed such a bizarre claim that I checked it out. Lindsey Smith, a leader in the Orwellianly named “Moms for Liberty” group did say “I would like to address the lie that parental groups and Moms for Liberty are ‘book banning.’ If removing a sexual explicit book from school libraries is what you see as book banning, then you need to reevaluate your language.”

That spinning sound you hear is poor George once again revolving in his grave.

That’s an interesting argument. I’ve heard it argued that removing a book from a library isn’t “banning” because anyone can still “buy the book from Amazon.” That’s bogus. You’ve removed access to a book from someone—someone who may not have the financial wherewithal to buy the book—who might want to read it and put it behind a pay wall. The government may not have banned the book. In that location, you HAVE. And if a person uses an organized political movement to intimidate and demand removal of books that professionals have deemed worth reading and many might wish to read to help understand themselves, you are banning the book. Or at least trying. Fortunately, many others are fighting to keep First Amendment rights, with one person not dictating to others what should and should not be available in a library.

How is removing award-winning books from libraries based on content you object to—but many others do not—not banning, in that time and place?

But why expect logic, I guess.

Speaking of objections, it might be asked what this has to do with ReadersFirst and library digital content. The answer of course is everything. Digital content platforms are a book banner’s dream. Imagine being able to remove thousands of book without even having to burn them?

So, while RF assumes people interested in library digital content are already signed up, we again share the ALA’s plea to fight the banners:

Don't let the book ban deniers win. Tell Congress to support librarians and educators by opposing book bans and share with your community to bring new people into our pro-freedom to read movement:

Tell Congress: I Stand for the Freedom to Read

Book ban denialism is dangerous, and it's dead wrong. In our preliminary data on 2023 book challenges, we found some troubling results:

• Book bans have increased by 20% from the same point last year

• Book challenges are on the rise in public libraries, and accounted for 49% of those documented by ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), compared to 16% at the same point last year.

• "Serial book banners" are also on the rise, with 11 states reporting challenges of 100 or more books - up from 6 last year.

So, in the face of continually rising challenges, how do we resist?

We fight back by growing our movement and showing that the vast majority of Americans stand for the freedom to read diverse and challenging books. Help grow our movement by clicking below, writing to Congress, and sharing with your community:

Resist Book Bans Now - Write to Congress, then Share!

Transcript from DPLA/COSLA/ReadersFirst "Collaborating for Access # 6"

Here's a link to the recording of the most recent DPLA/COSLA/ReadersFirst "Collaborating  for Access": www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPqbEKTSRJI

What do librarians REALLY want from publishers, and how can smaller and independent publishers create a better ecosystem? In our sixth Collaborating for Access webinar, COSLA, DPLA, and ReadersFirst are partnering with the Independent Publisher Caucus to bring together librarians and smaller and independent publishers to explore how they can work together to provide greater access for patrons. Topics will include: Opportunities for independent publishers in the library market; licensing options that are most attractive to libraries; and ways that libraries and independent publishers can work together to mutual benefit.

Licensing to meet best-seller demand from the Big 5 is not working for us. We can offer fewer titles unless limited budgets are stretched to breaking point. Collections suffer in depth and diversity. Enhancing our use of medium and smaller publisher offerings can benefit authors . . . and us, with studies showing that collections grow, “power user” patrons read more, and circulation rise without cost increase. It will require developing more discovery methods and highlighting of available high-quality but lesser known works. Hey, our readers have to wait for the most popular titles anyway. Let them wait a little longer and give everyone more to choose from. Maybe YOU will help create the next best-selling blockbuster.

Rally for the Right to Read

Penguin Random House, Booklist, and the ALA’s Unite Against Book Bans are hosting a special event today:

TODAY
Join us for Rally for the Right to Read:
A Banned Books Week Event

TODAY at 2 PM ET, join Penguin Random House, Booklist, and Unite Against Book Bans for a special Banned Books Week event as we premiere the video of Ibram X. Kendi’s motivating and moving speech from Rally for the Right to Read at the 2023 ALA Annual Conference.

Get a sneak peek of Dr. Kendi’s speech.

Introduced by Tracie D. Hall, Executive Director of the American Library Association, in conversation with Chris Jackson, EVP, Publisher, & Editor-in-Chief of One World—this hour-long webinar will celebrate the right to read and librarians’ role in providing access for all.

Learn more and register for free here.

While digital content can reach into areas where books have been removed from library shelves, we’ll all be stronger for fighting for this fundamental right everywhere. I attended and saw Dr. Kendi at the ALA Conference. His speech is well worth a listen!