Sundry Library Ebook News

The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is expanding its commitment to fighting book bans, adding a “Banned Book of the Week” to its Banned Book Club. There have been three selections so far:

Brown Girl Dreaming

Separate is Never Equal

Front Desk

Most people would probably ask why any of these charming, well-reviewed, and important books would be challenged, but it seems book censors are quite willing to suppress titles on political grounds. DPLA Curation Corps members select and synopses of the titles. RF thanks DPLA for bringing attention to good and unjustly banned works and for making sure those books remain available digitally where books are banned.

Two members of the RF Working Group has published an article, The State of Digital Content In Public Libraries. Obviously, my view is not an objective one, but fwiw I think the article does a good job discussing some positive developments in addition to setting out the reasons for continued advocacy for better terms. Hope you find it interesting!

Ebook Friday Update

Many influential voices in library digital content will foregather for the Annual ALA Ebooks Interest Group Meeting (AKA Ebook Friday) on June 28th, 10 am to 2 pm Pacific, with a reception to follow. If you are at the Conference, please join us. The event is free and open to all.

ALA Ebook Friday Schedule

June 28, 10 am - 2 pm, with reception to follow

Hilton Bayfront, Sapphire Ballroom

10:00 to 10:05    Welcome (Michael Blackwell, Micah May)

10:05 - 10:20: ReadersFirst Publisher Price Watch and Publisher Studies with Carmi Parker

10:20 to 10:40:  COSLA Update with Angela Stanley

10:40 - 11:00:  State Library Ebook Legislative Update with Kyle Courtney

11:00 - 11:30: CDL and Internet Archive Update, with Chris Freeland, Lila Bailey, Brewster Kahle, and Joe Graetz 

11:30 - 11:45: Library Futures Advocacy Updates with Jennie Rose Halperin and Michele Reed

11:45 - 11:55:  Break

11:55 - 12:10:  Books Unbanned Update with Amy Mikel and Banned Book Club with Micah May

12:10 - 12:30:  Ownership of Ebooks: The Briet Project with Maria Bustillos and Palace Project Ownership Model with Micah May 

12:30 - 12:50:  Meeting the Challenge with Variable Hold Queues and other strategies with Carmi Parker, Robin Bradford, and Micah May

12:50 - 1:00:  Palace Project Update (Micah)

1:00 - 1:50  Indie Publishers Summit Follow-up

•           Claire Kelley: The Indie Publisher Ebook Experience and Experiments (15 minutes)

•           Rachel Zugschwert: The School Market Experience (10 minutes)

•           Publishers Panel Discussion (30 minutes)

• Greystone (Megan or Lara, tbd) 

• Anne Fonteneau, Blackstone Publishing

• Richard Williams, Independent Publishers Group

• Daniel O’ Brien, Independent Publishes Caucus 

1:50 - 2:00:  Final Q & A and wrap up

Reception follows at 2:30 

Reception follows at 2:30-4:30 pm sponsored by Ingram, DPLA/Palace 

Fairweather Rooftop Bar, San Diego

Event Date:  Friday June 28th, 2024

Food sponsored by Ingram

Drinks by DPLA/Palace and Unlimited Listens

Fight for the Future on Publisher Earnings and Our PPW

Fight for the Future has posted a thread on how “Publishing profits are better than they were 10 years ago,” even while various publishers have complained about library digital content is “cannibalizing” profits and the big publishers are “pouring money into suing the [Internet] Archive, saying that they’ve been economically devastated.”

Replying to a chart from the Recording Industry Association of America’s chart in an amicus brief submitted for the IA suit showing how in the first years of the WWWW revenues went down (while noting that now “recording industry profits are higher than ever yet musicians are struggling worse than ever”), FftF notes “There is no chart to show the same economic harm to publishing from what @InternetArchive or any other library does, not even from piracy.”

They cite a report from the Association of American Publishers (AAP) noting that revenues rose from 2012 to 2022.

They follow with a report from the Authors Guild noting that “While the tens of billions publishing is making has been at historic highs over the past several years, median author incomes, which frankly were always pathetic, have gone down over 50% since 2007.”

They conclude “It seems unfair that as publishing profits remain steady or grow, publishers are paying authors less than ever. While suing to shut down the digital libraries we need the most in this era of book bans and censorship. Who’s the real ‘Napster’? [S]how your support by heading to http://BattleForLibraries.com and by telling big publishers to leave libraries’ rights alone and start paying authors + publishing staffs appropriately!”

It is axiomatic that if public libraries, and the right of first sale that allows them to share print books, were to be proposed to be created today, the Big 5 and the AAP would probably go to court to stop it. RF suggests that FftF is correct: library digital content, including by the IA, is not destroying profits. If libraries were that harmful, we’d have undermined the publishing industry all these hundreds of years, with higher circulation at a far lower cost per use for us in print materials. Obviously that hasn’t happened. And yet look at costs. Our Publisher Price Watch 2024 update shows how the Big 5 have raised print retail prices slightly, raised retail digital (not quite as much as print), decreased retail audiobook prices significantly, but raised library digital prices across the board more than the retail increases, and much more in the case of audiobooks.

So, there’s more than one way to disadvantage libraries and our readers. Prices keep escalating. Other license terms are no better. More than one library is struggling. But we’re not the ones keeping author revenue down. Better terms and more fair prices would probably mean more money for non-best-selling authors in library digital, even at the pitiful rates the Big 5 think to pay while scooping in the big bucks. Yes, go to http://BattleForLibraries.com and voice your support. But also get ready to support fair ebook legislation next year in many states. We need your help, now more than ever.

ALA Annual Ebook Friday Update

At ALA Annual in San Diego, the CORE Ebooks Interest Group will feature the 6th Annual “Ebook Friday.” Leaders in the library digital content ecosystem will present projects, discuss trends, and consider possible advocacy. Presenters will include the following, and more: A ReadersFirst update on recent publishers price increases; Amy Mikel from Brooklyn Public Library on Books Unbanned; Kyle Courtney and Yuliya Zuskina of the Ebook Study Group on state ebook laws; Jennie Rose Halperin and Michelle Reed of Library Futures on EbooksForAll; Carmi Parker of the Whatcom Library System on innovative collection models; Chris Freeland of the Internet Archive; Micah May of DPLA with a Palace Project Update, including ebook purchase rather than leasing options and the Banned Book Club; Maria Bustillos of BRIET on ebook purchasing rather than licensing; Claire Kelley from Seven Stories Press on library ebook experiments from an independent publisher; and a panel of independent publishers on the challenges and opportunities of the library ebook market. All with an interest in a better library digital content experience are welcome to this free exploration of the challenges libraries face in meeting increasing demand sustainably.

Ebook Friday will be on June 28th from 10 a.m. to 2 pm., with a gathering to follow.

Hope to see you there!

LJ Coverage of the IndieLib Summit

Thank you to Jane Friedman of LIbrary Journal for the article “The First of Many Conversations: Librarians and Independent Publishers Come Together at IndieLib 2024.” It is, as the title aptly suggests, a report of the IndieLib Summit, where independent publishers and librarians met the better to “communicate and tackle shared challenges. These days, those challenges are numerous and include powerful corporations that dominate the business, ongoing attacks on the freedom to read, and the ever-present dilemma of discoverability.” [Full disclosure: members of the ReadersFirst Working Group were instrumental in the planning of and participated in the summit].

RF encourages a full reading of the article and so will not summarize here, but note especially Friedman’s summary of keynote speaker Rebecca Giblin’s comments. Giblin identifies well many of the issues we face in trying to get a more sustainable library digital content market. The summit was about more than just digital, but we stick to a digital focus here because of RF’s raison d'être.

Freidman concludes “One of the hallmarks of a successful relationship is presenting a united front to the world. If all goes well, the attendees of IndieLib will continue the conversation together, in a productive—and less star-crossed—way.” This is indeed only the first IndieLib. Plans are being made for a follow up. Greater visibility in the library market can help smaller publishers, while they may be able to offer better terms to libraries struggling under unsustainable Big 5 costs.

I come away with one major concern. Until this conference, I had no idea how many of the smaller publishers have their digital content distributed through the Big 5. They simply cannot distribute them on their own for fiscal reasons. When these publishers ask the Big 5 distributors to allow variable licenses, often at less costs, they are invariably told no, it simply isn’t possible. The restrictive and high-cost Big 5 licenses must be used. Not possible? Really? Hmm. Sounds bogus. What, the technology doesn’t allow it? I call BS. It’s because they don’t want to, and we mustn’t exempt the library vendor industry leader from the part it may well also help play in restricting access. I’m not yet sure how we are going to do it, but we MUST find an alternative way for high-quality and interesting works to come to libraries outside the Big 5 digital distribution “chokepoint.” Until we can, we shall be stuck. This problem will be one focus of discussion in future IndieLibs.

More CDL News: A Response to the Publishers in the IA Case

As noted in a press release from Chris Freeland of the Internet Archive (IA), publishers recently filed a reply brief in their ongoing suit against the Internet Archive over the use of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) in the Archive’s Books Collection. Mr. Freeland notes that Dave Hansen of the Author’s Alliance and Kyle Courtney of Harvard University have responded to that reply brief. This analysis of the publishers’ position, and the questionable legal rulings from the first round in the suit on which that position is based, is well-worth a read.

The authors note that while the IA is arguing that its use of CDL is fair use, the publishers are expanding the basis of suit to question CDL in its entirety:

It is “an attempt to undermine what libraries have done for centuries: lend the books that they already lawfully own. Ironically, the opposition calls CDL a made-up theory created by a “cadre of boosters,” but in actuality, it’s the publishers’ licensing system that is a modern, made-up invention. The works themselves are unchanged, but the nature of digital delivery allows publishers to charge people in new ways. There is nothing in the Copyright Act that states ebook licensing is, or should be, the default way for libraries to acquire and lend books.

Precisely. These are books. The IA has acquired them legally. Why shouldn’t they be able to lend them one person at a time? And here we see the real reason for the publishers’ stand: the drive to take away ownership of content and use licensing to monetize books in near perpetuity.

The authors convincingly demolish the idea that the IA is using CDL for profit:

As IA laid out in its opening brief, it has only received $5,561.41 from Better World Books in the relevant time frame.  That’s an infinitesimally small drop in the bucket compared to the costs that IA has borne to digitize and lend books for no monetary return from readers. . . . For anyone who has actually worked on such projects, it is clear that IA is not archiving or lending books for commercial purposes. The idea that there is money to be made in doing so is laughable. Instead, it is providing access to knowledge and cultural heritage.

My small library got a grant to digitize four works and make them available through the through the Digital Public Library of America. Yes, they were high-quality PDFs, and we outsourced, but they were $425 apiece. CDL is NOT a money-maker. If a library engages in it, money isn’t the reason. CDL would be beyond the means of nearly every library, and the removal of half a million titles (so far) in the IA’s collection is a loss to anyone without the wherewithal use a commercial service to license any book they want.

The authors effectively question whether or not the IA’s CDL is causing commercial harm:

That a library is loaning and controlling those copies is also a major distinguishing factor, because borrowing a book from a library (along with all the special privacy protections one receives) provides a vastly different reading environment than one in which vendors can scrape, process and sell data about your reading experience. Notably, the publishers did not engage with this argument. “IA refuses to pay the customary price and join the Publishers’ thriving market for authorized library ebooks…”

Their argument covers many nuances and should be read in full, but in fact, despite an assumption of commercial harm falsely made in the first hearing, the publishers have never proven that the IA’s non-commercial-use scans have cost them ebook sales. Again, the publishers’ game is revealed: the fair use of materials in libraries that has existed for over a century and benefitted readers (and authors and publishers) is now unacceptable when they have recourse to an unfairly priced way to control and limit reading.

The authors conclude that “CDL simply seeks to preserve the library’s long-established and vital mission to collect and lend books in an increasingly licensed-access digital world.” Just so. RF thanks the IA for taking on corporate giants in a fight for the rights of all libraries and library readers. We can hope for a different ruling than the first as this case progresses. But ultimately, it will be up to Congress to rebalance the horrible wrench away from promoting the “Progress of Science and useful Arts” that the publishers are using to the great detriment of the public..

NISO’s Draft Interoperable System of Controlled Digital Lending Recommended Practice Now Open for Public Comment

Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) is increasingly being used in libraries, so it’s high time we started developing standards for how it can be best be used. NISO conveyed a committee to develop these standards. You can review and even comment on their work, as noted in this press release:

Baltimore, Maryland, March 21, 2024: The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) announced today that its draft Interoperable System of Controlled Digital Lending (IS-CDL) Recommended Practice (NISO RP-44-202X) is now available for public comment through April 21 at the project website, https://www.niso.org/standards-committees/is-cdl. 

Libraries often need to lend digital surrogates of print content from their collections for various reasons, including when access to physical collections is disrupted, such as in the COVID-19 pandemic or where a natural disaster occurs, or when the physical item is too fragile to circulate. Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) allows libraries to replicate the right to lend their legally acquired items in a digital format to patrons under "controlled" conditions, meaning a library can lend only the number of copies of a specific title that it owns and that controls are implemented to prevent copying or distribution of the work. The process of implementing CDL can be quite complex and must take into account various scenarios and systems requirements. 

Supported by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and formed in 2022, the NISO IS-CDL working group has completed an outline of the technical and functional processes necessary for libraries to interoperably implement CDL in a variety of situations. Its draft Recommended Practice includes four distinct architectural models covering both CDL within a single institution as well as shared CDL infrastructure: 1) Standalone CDL system, 2) Integrated Institution-based System, 3) Shared CDL Infrastructure/Integrated Consortium-based System, and 4) Distributed/Decentralized CDL. These models are described using common attributes, allowing potential adopters to compare and consider practical aspects of how they might be developed or implemented in a local environment. Model-specific recommendations enable readers to better understand system requirements for various types of lending scenarios in an individual library or across a consortium or set of libraries. The document also includes recommendations on cross-model considerations, such as the text conversion practices, use of file formats, accessibility standards, and bibliographic descriptions. Note that legal and copyright questions about CDL are not included in the scope of the working group; libraries are encouraged to consult their legal counsel before implementing a CDL program.

Allen Jones, Working Group Co-Chair and Director of Digital Libraries and Technical Services at The New School, stated, "We hope this Recommended Practice will help libraries as they design digital lending services. This document illustrates the interoperability requirements for CDL system designers to support circulation and interlibrary lending.  Feedback from the community will improve the final publication and help us meet the needs of as many organizations as possible." 

"After many months of collaborative work, we are excited to release the draft Recommended Practice to the public for comment,"  said Jennie Rose Halperin, Working Group Co-Chair and Director of Library Futures at NYU Law's Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy. "This document contextualizes the many ways that libraries and communities might utilize CDL, with particular attention to stakeholder groups and a comprehensive overview of potential models both at present and in the future. The NISO IS-CDL working group is committed to improving the accessibility of library collections, and this set of practices and norms provides the foundation for the future of library digitization." 

"I would like to thank Allen and Jennie and the entire IS-CDL Working Group for their efforts to analyze the landscape and sort and detail the processes described in the draft Recommended Practice," added Nettie Lagace, NISO Assistant Executive Director. "We invite all members of the information community to review their work and share any feedback." 

The draft Recommended Practice is available through April 21.

About NISO

Based in Baltimore, MD, NISO's mission is to build knowledge, foster discussion, and advance authoritative standards development through collaboration among the cultural, scholarly, scientific, and professional communities. To fulfill this mission, NISO engages with libraries, publishers, information aggregators, and other organizations that support learning, research, and scholarship through the creation, organization, management, and curation of knowledge. NISO works with intersecting communities of interest and across the entire life cycle of information standards. NISO is a nonprofit association accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). For more information, visit the NISO website (https://niso.org) or contact us at nisohq@niso.org.

Authors Against Book Bans (or, Who is this country for?)

In yesterday’s news post, RF left off the list of the groups fighting the book bans an important group: Authors Against Book Bans.

RF apologizes for the omission.

They are a “group of authors [note—anyone supporting books in any way can help] organized to protect and promote the freedom to read on both the national and local levels. Our aim is to create a network of authors to work in conjunction with a variety of national level organizations, as well as grass roots freedom-to-read organizations on a state-by-state level, for an effective, coordinated response against book bans and other threats to the freedom to read.”

They “stand united against the deeply unconstitutional movement to limit the freedom to read. We unequivocally support the availability of diverse voices on our library shelves, in our schools, and in our culture. Our concern is not only for the books themselves, but for the children, families, educators, librarians, and communities that suffer when the freedom to read is challenged and taken away. The great power of literature is its ability to create empathy, foster self-empowerment, imbue knowledge, and enhance diversity of thought. We will defend this power from those who seek to subvert it.”

Of course, this fight is about more than the freedom to read. It is about the freedom to BE. It goes to the very heart of the American experiment—whether this country will fulfill its promise to allow everyone self-development, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or let the constraints and the “mind-forg'd manacles” of a minority circumscribe the lives of the many.

One reason to work in a library is that we “contain multitudes.” Even the most rigid of would-be book banners would find something to like on our shelves. We ask only that we be able to make responsible choices about the other books they might find, and that the great, glorious, and vital diversity that is our country be represented. Don’t tell us what not to have. Tell us what you might want as well. To those who will work with us, we offer open doors. To those who would subvert our fundamental value of the freedom to read, we offer defiance and the promise to defeat you in the courts, in the media, in the federal legislatures, and, yes, in the libraries.

Thanks to all those supporting Authors Against Book Bans. May your books find places in readers hands, devices, and libraries.

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.