E-books on the Decline? We Beg to Differ!

ReadersFirst tends not to share news from for-profit vendors, but OverDrkive's recent press release is noteworthy, not so much because of OverDrive's success (though we at RF continue to wish them well) as for showing that, at least in public libraries, the e-book is far from being on the decline.

 "OverDrive announced today that 30 standalone public library systems and 19 library consortia in the U.S. and two other countries have set a new record for lending more than one million digital books in 2016. These 49 systems each achieved significant year over year circulation growth, and together surpassed the 32 systems that accomplished the feat in 2015."

Five libraries (or consortiums) circulated over 3 million e-books in one year. Seven circulated over 2 million. Here's the list, with percentages of growth. Note how the move to e-books is international. ReadersFirst is proud to note that many of our members, individually or as part of a consortia, are on the list.

Just think what might be accomplished if more content were to become available through more varied business models.

3 million or more digital books circulated
• Toronto Public Library (ON) +20% (standalone library)
• King County Library System (WA) +21% (standalone library)
• Wisconsin’s Digital Library (WI) +11% (consortia)
• Greater Phoenix Digital Library (AZ) +12% (consortia)
• The Ohio Digital Library (OH) +15% (consortia)

2 million or more digital books circulated
• New York Public Library (NY) +28% (standalone library)
• Los Angeles Public Library (CA) +44% (standalone library)
• Seattle Public Library (WA) +12% (standalone library)
• Tennessee READS (TN) +21% (consortia)
• Digital Downloads Collaboration (OH) +17% (consortia)
• Maryland’s Digital Library (MD) +14% (consortia)
• Ontario Library Service Consortium (ON) +12% (consortia)

1 million or more digital books circulated
• Hennepin County Library (MN) +20% (standalone library)
• Cuyahoga County Public Library (OH) +8% (standalone library)
• Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (OH) +22% (standalone library)
• Calgary Public Library (AB) +8% (standalone library)
• Fairfax County Public Library (VA) +20% (standalone library)
• San Francisco Public Library (CA) +23% (standalone library)
• Multnomah County Library (OR) +38% (standalone library)
• Broward County Library (FL) +13% (standalone library)
• Boston Public Library (MA) +24% (standalone library)
• Pikes Peak Library District (CO) +21% (standalone library)
• Mid-Continent Public Library (MO) +25% (standalone library)
• Indianapolis Public Library (IN) +19% (standalone library)
• Sno-Isle Libraries (WA) +34% (standalone library)
• County of Los Angeles Public Library (CA) +25% (standalone library)
• Denver Public Library (CO) +26% (standalone library)
• Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (PA) +25% (standalone library)
• Harris County Public Library (TX) +34% (standalone library)
• Hillsborough County Public Library Cooperative (FL) +16% (standalone library)
• St. Louis County Library (MO) +17% (standalone library)
• The Free Library of Philadelphia (PA) +12% (standalone library)
• Brooklyn Public Library (NY) +21% (standalone library)
• Orange County Library System (FL) +12% (standalone library)
• Metropolitan Library System (OK) +8% (standalone library)
• San Antonio Public Library (TX) +25% (standalone library)
• Ottawa Public Library (ON) +9% (standalone library)
• CLEVNET (OH) +16% (consortia)
• Oregon Digital Library Consortium (OR) +9% (consortia)
• North Carolina Digital Library (NC) +18% (consortia)
• Kentucky Libraries Unbound (KY) +17% (consortia)
• Lîve-brary.com (NY) +15% (consortia)
• My Media Mall (IL) +1% (consortia)
• Utah’s Online Library (UT) +39% (consortia)
• Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MI) +12% (consortia)
• Houston Area Digital Media Catalog (TX) +17% (consortia)
• Bridges (IA) +124% (started collection in July of 2015) (consortia)
• Las Vegas-Clark County Library District (NV) +31% (consortia)
• Auckland Libraries (NZ) +24% (consortia)

Michael Blackwell, St Mary's County Library (member of Maryland's e-book group)

More E-Books to Become Available to Library Users for Free!

Thanks to a most generous grant from the Alfred P Sloan Foundation, the Digital Public Library of America is making a collection of e-books available in EPUB format to public libraries.  These e-books, ReadersFirst has learned, will supplement the work that DPLA is doing with the SimplyE app. No word yet exactly how the titles will be made available--perhaps simultaneous access model isn't out of the question?-- but it seems likely that they will be open to libraries that deploy SimplyE as an app and perhaps also through the Open eBooks app. Increased access to free and readily available content will make the SimplyE app an even more attractive option for public libraries, especially once the 2.0 version of the app lowers costs and deployment complexities.

Here's the press release from DPLA:

The Digital Public Library of America is thrilled to announce that the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has awarded DPLA $1.5 million to greatly expand its efforts to provide broad access to widely read ebooks. The grant will support improved channels for public libraries to bolster their ebook collections, and for millions of readers nationwide to access those works easily.

DPLA will leverage its extensive connections to America’s libraries through its national network to pilot new ways of acquiring ebook collections. In the same way that DPLA has worked with its hubs in states from coast to coast to improve access to digitized materials from America’s archives, museums, and libraries, DPLA will collaborate with other institutions to improve access to ebooks through market-based methods.

As part of the grant, DPLA will also develop an expansive, open collection of popular ebooks, formatted in the EPUB format for smartphones and tablets, and curated so that readers can find works of interest. Together, these programs will increase substantially the number of ebooks that are readable by all Americans, on the devices that are now broadly held throughout society.

“From its inception, DPLA has sought to maximize access to our shared culture,” Dan Cohen, DPLA’s Executive Director, said at the announcement of the new Sloan grant. “Books are central to that culture, and the means through which everyone can find knowledge and understanding, multiple viewpoints, history, literature,  science, and enthralling entertainment. We deeply appreciate the Sloan Foundation’s support to help us connect the most people with the most books, which are now largely in digital formats.”

“The Sloan Foundation is delighted to support the Digital Public Library of America’s efforts to create new channels for better ebook access,” said Doron Weber, Vice President and Program Director at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. “Sloan was the founding funder of DPLA and its mission, enabling a nationwide, grassroots and non-profit collaboration that to date has provided access to over 15 million digitized items from over 2,000 cultural heritage institutions across the U.S. With its timely new focus on ebooks, DPLA will leverage its national network to expand reading opportunities for thousands of schools and libraries and millions of students, scholars, and members of the public.”

The Sloan grant will help DPLA build upon its existing successful ebook work, such as in the Open eBooks Initiative, which has provided thousands of popular and award-winning books to children in need. Recently, DPLA announced with its Open eBooks partners the New York Public Library, First Book, Baker & Taylor, and Clever that well over one million books were read through the Sloan-supported program in 2016.

SimplyE a Top 10 for 2016

Mr. Andrew Albanese of Publishers Weekly, who has often earned ReasersFirst's admiration for trenchant commentary on library e-books, has named the SimplyE app on of the Top Ten Library Stories of 2016.

Notes Albanese:

"In July, the New York Public Library rolled out its much-anticipated e-book app, SimplyE. The app seeks to solve a problem that has long plagued library e-book users, by simplifying the cumbersome process of checking out library e-books. Make no mistake—the app, by focusing on the user experience, represents a big step forward for those who borrow library e-books. But it also serves to highlight just how far the library e-book market has to go.

But let’s start with the good news. After years of complaints from library e-book users forced to wrestle with clunky interfaces and processes powered by a growing and diverse array of vendors, the SimplyE app offers users one simple interface for all ePub-based library e-books, regardless of vendor. And SimplyE looks and acts like any commercial e-book platform. It features highlighted titles with thumbnails of book jackets. And when you find a book that you want to read, it takes just a few clicks, three or less, and you’re reading. Well, sort of (more on that below).

Developed by a group called Library Simplified, a coalition of libraries and tech partners (with NYPL serving as lead partner), the app is based on open-source code and is available for virtually any public library or library system to use. And because it is open source, partner libraries are free to improve, tinker with, customize, and brand the app for their own library systems."

His final sentence is less favorable: "After all, as I observed in a column this summer, it would be a shame if SimplyE served mostly to highlight for users how frustrating it is to get an e-book from the library."

ReadersFirst appreciates the good review of the SimplyE app. Expect to see a 2.0 version of the app soon that will, through the efforts of the Library E-content Access Project (LEAP--the grant partners behind SimplyE, who thank the IMLS for generous funding), be easier and cheaper for libraries without in-house developers to deploy. It will add more features, and compatibility with formats other than EPUB (PDF and Audiobook) is in the offing. We agree that overall "the library e-book market has [far] to go" but think it unfortuante to connect SimplyE with this sad state of affairs. Limited library budgets certainly have something to do with long waiting lists, but ALA's Digital Content Working Group and other ALA leaders have been working with (on?) publishers for some time to implement a business model (pay-per-use or subscription) that would allow libraries to take fuller advantage of e-books' ability to reach many users simultaneously. We have not been encouraged by the discussion, though there has been some limited progress with some o them. Hey, publishers, could we at least start with your backlists and see if we can work out something mutually beneficial for the good of reading and "to reduce the kind of friction that could drive readers away from books and the library"? We in libraries would love to work with you! Speaking of working, the app mostly works without a hitch. I have never had it fail, and I've demo’d it in many forums. Some of the poor user ratings of the app mentioned by Mr. Albanese say frankly unintelligent things like "books are boring" or "it sucks because you have to have a library card." That said, we in libraries do have more technical work to do to enhance the reader experience. Still, the LEAP partners are moving forward aggressively to create a great e-book experience. At current prices and with current business models, however, LEAPing up from the "plateau" Albanese mentions may be impossible however enthusiastically those at Library Simplified work to make the technical side of the experience streamlined and enjoyable.

NYPL and European Digital Reading Lab Take a Better E-Book Experience International

On Infodocket, Gary Price reports "New York Public Library and European Digital Reading Lab Team Up For a Better E-Reading Experience." Two two entities are collaborating "on the development of open-sourced mobile applications based on the Readium EPUB 3 reading engine.  This collaboration has three aspects: ebook lending management, accessibility and enhancements of the user experience on mobile devices."

"Both organizations will join their forces to ensure that the Library Simplified mobile app offers a great experience to visually impaired people on both iOS and Android devices. In order to respond to the rapid increase in use of mobile devices for ebook access, the Readium Foundation, EDRLab and NYPL are launching a major evolution of the Readium SDK codebase, . . . The architectural phase has already begun, and the year 2017 will see the birth [of] Readium 2."

ReadersFirst applauds the effort to enhance the library e-book experience, especially to improve accessibility on mobile devices. To make library e-content available and readily usable by all is to live the most basic of library values. That this effort is international is all the more impressive, fulfilling RF's hopes for cooperation across borders.   

Of Interest to Academic Librarians and Library Users: Buy or Wait?

Academic librarian and e-book users face a dilemma that public librarians seldom do. Academic e-book titles titles seldom appear at the same time as the print version. Typically, there is a waiting period. With budgets under stress due to many reasons--perhaps not least the escalating costs of journals--few titles are likely to be acquired in both print and digital versions. So, is it best to buy right away and get timely access to content or wait for a digital version that may offer advantages in access and storage? Karen Kohn of Temple University has done an analysis to hep with the decision. She concludes (in part) the following: 

Publishing e‐books simultaneous with the print is still not the norm, despite some publishers’ stated intentions, and thus deciding what to do about delays is still an issue for libraries. This analysis of publication patterns can better equip libraries to make decisions about how long they will wait to see if an e‐book becomes available. This study shows that the older a print book gets, the more likely it is to have an electronic version, but that the largest gains in e‐book availability come during the first few weeks after the print publication. Waiting for an e‐book becomes less worthwhile the longer the wait. While 47.85% of books are available as e‐books fourteen days after the print, it is not until day 101 that the percentage tops seventy‐five percent. Libraries wishing to review their wait periods based on the data provided here will most likely choose a wait period between eight and thirty‐six days. After thirty‐six days, continuing to wait is usually not worthwhile, unless a particular school or program has such a strong preference for e‐books that print is not considered to be useful.   

ReadersFirst is glad for the increased understanding Ms. Kohn brings to the subject and encourages investigating her study.

Pay Authors for Library e-Book Use?

In a guest post on The Digital Reader, Rita Matulionyte discusses the practice of Public Lending Rights (PLR), under which authors (and publishers) are paid when patrons check out library items. This practice is commonplace in Europe, Canada, and (for print) Australia. Her focus is on why Australia might consider the practice for e-books as well.

"But e-book lending is increasing and, according to the Australian Library and Information Association, e-books are likely to reach 20% of library holdings by 2020. Also, most, if not all, self-published titles are done so in digital format only. Such self-published titles, if lent by libraries, would not qualify for any remuneration.

For this reason, authors and publishers have been lobbying the Government to extend the Lending Rights Schemes to e-books. Although the Book Industry Collaborative Council made such proposal already in a report of 2013, nothing has happened of yet.

One of the main reasons why e-books are not covered is that e-book lending is quite different from print book lending. In case of print books, authors and publishers are arguably losing on customers and revenues when libraries loan their books for free.

At present, in the case of e-books, many publishers chose not to sell these books to libraries. Also, publishers assume that libraries will lend e-books to many readers so they often charge libraries three or more times the price that consumers are paying for the same e-books.

While publishers charge libraries high prices for e-books, writers complain that these amounts do not reach them. Publishing contracts often don’t specify whether and how much authors receive for e-books sales or for e-lending."

She concludes that applying PLR to e-books could help authors and the Aussie publishing industry but would not be enough to make a measurable difference in the current Australian political situation.

In U.S. Libraries, with our strong commitment to Right of First Sale, PLR is anathema.

Or is it?

 While most U.S. librarians may have begun as First Sale absolutists, for digital content at least many have changed their minds. The 26 circ lease model, much decried at the time (I’ve been told some people in publishing even lost jobs over it), has in fact proven to be perhaps our best digital content model-–far better than outright ownership given that we must often get multiple copies to satisfy demand for popular titles under a one-user circ model. Putting a time limit (one year or two) on this model can create issues, but it is still solid compared to most alternatives.

Libraries also have a tradition of supporting authors. If we could work out a model under which authors got paid a fair price per use for e-books, I doubt many librarians would object.

Let’s identify the real problem source of the issue in the U.S.: not authors, not libraries, but publishers. That is from whom we are (through vendors) typically leasing content. The prices for best sellers are exorbitant; as pointed out in the post above, it is by no means certain that the extra money is going to the authors. The current use models are not beneficial and do not allow libraries to take advantage of e-book full possibilities.

Perhaps authors and librarians could find common cause, advocating for a pay-per-use or subscription model that allowed authors to be fairly paid per download while freeing librarians to circ e-book content without restrictions. Some publishers are already using such a model with library vendors and don’t seem to be losing their shirts. This model is working in libraries for audiobook, music, and video content. Why not e-books? The ALA’s Digital Content Working Group has approached the Big 5 to explore such models, but, with one or two small experiments excepted, has mostly been stalled or ignored. We could perhaps start with backlists and, once established as effective, expand the model. Perhaps publishers could offer a variety of use models, depending on the title, its likely popularity, and potential staying power.

Authors, we like you to get paid. Many libraries are working to forge beneficial relationships with local writers to get them noticed and earn some sales. Why not join us? Push for more open models. Let’s saw through the mind-forged manacles. We have nothing to lose but limited circs and inequitable distribution of revenue.

ReadersFirst wishes all a joyous holiday and a prosperous 2017. Santa, if we could have anything, it would be a year in which the library e-Content experience gets even better (look for big news from NISO and LEAP as early as January) and librarians, authors. publishers, and vendors all sat down for a big feast to share, promote common interests, and promulgate a variety of flexible e-book models that let us increase circulation, getting more content into the hands of more users while being fair to the authors and publishers who produce that content. 

Another Study: Reading Comprehension on the Small Screen

Nate Hoffelder at The Digital Reader has referenced yet another study about reading comprehension on mobile-sized screens.  The study, from Neilson Norman, contradicts prior research that suggested readers comprehend less well when reading on a smaller screen when compared to a full-sized monitor.

"In our research, conducted six years later, we found a surprisingly different result. We asked 276 participants to read a variety of articles on various topics on either a mobile phone or a personal computer. Some of the articles were easy and some were difficult. After each article, we asked participants to answer a few questions to measure their level of comprehension of the content. We found no practical differences in the comprehension scores of the participants, whether they were reading on a mobile device or a computer." 

A summary:  overall, comprehension scores were slightly higher on mobile, but reading was also slightly slower. "It may be the case" that comprehension of "very difficult" content may be more difficult on smaller screens, but (as always it seems) "More research is needed to know if this effect is real"

Hoffeleder is "not surprised to read about the different results nor am I puzzled by the conflicting research. The differences can be explained by the differences in reading material used for the studies, and by improvements in mobile tech over the past six years."

If the reading experience on mobile-sized screens (on which most library e-books are read) has improved with technology, excellent.  RF would be interested in seeing a study that compared comprehension of fiction and non-fiction e-books typically available from libraries, at different reading levels, in print, monitor, and mobile (e-ink and otherwise), to see if this study's results could be replicated and if the many claims that print comprehension outstrips digital might be tested. Any library researchers out there up for the task?     

E-content at ALA Midwinter: The Place to Be!

Some informative sessions on e-books and e-content in general are happening at ALA Midwinter. If you are going to be there and are interested in digital content, check out the following.  Learn about the latest developments of SimplyE, the "one app to rule them all," and the LEAP partnership that is launching it. The Association of Specialized & Cooperative Library Agencies (ASCLA) consortial e-books group is a great way to keep up news and to make a difference. ALA Digital Content Working Group is exploring ways ALA can make a difference in digital content for libraries. Listen to Anthony Marx's visionary thoughts on how libraries can help shape the digital future, learn how the Open eBooks app is helping to bridge the digital divide, or join the cause and "Collude! Resist! Collaborate!" on "Ebook Strategies for the Modern Revolutionary." It's wealth of digital information brought to you in real-time non-virtual reality.  Be there!     

      Friday, January 20

Meeting: SimplyE for Consortia Advisory Group

Time: 9:00am - 10:30am

Location: Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) Room B216

Meeting: Open content discussion (OPEN)

Time: 10:30-12:00

Location: Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) Room B216

Description: Unstructured discussion for people working on open access collections

Meeting: ASCLA Consortial Interest Ebook Group

Time: 2:30pm-4:00pm

Location: Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) Room B216

Saturday, January 21

Meeting: LEAP Partners

Time: 10:00am - 1:00pm

Location: Atlanta-Fulton Central Library

Proposed Agenda

Meeting: ALA Digital Content Working Group

Time:  4:40 – 6:30 PM

Location: Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) Room A303

Sunday, January 22

Presentation: Charting Libraries’ Digital Futures: A Conversation with New York Public Library’s Anthony W. Marx

Participants: Anthony Marx, NYPL

Time: 10:00am - 11:00am

Location: Georgia World Congress Center (GWCC) Room A411/A412b

Presentation: "Bridging the Digital Divide with Open eBooks"

Participants: Michelle Bickert, DPLA; James English, NYPL; Baker & Taylor; Clever

Time: 10:30am - 11:30am

Location: TBD

Panel: Collude! Resist! Collaborate! Ebook Strategies for the Modern Revolutionary

Participants: Veronda Pitchford, RAILS; Paula MacKinnon, Califa; Steve Spohn, MLS

Time: 1:30pm - 2:30pm

Location: TBD

Results from a Survey on SimplyE

SimplyE, frequently mentioned on this page, has been the subject of a user survey by Minitex. We are told that Minitex is hiring program developers who will meet with developers from NYPL to enhance the app, adding capabilities such as annotation, documentation, and PDF compatibility that will make it more suited for academic use.

Here is an executive summary, with thanks to Minitex Director Valerie Horton:

SimplyE Awareness Survey Executive Summary
November 2016

As outlined in the SimplyE for Consortia grant to IMLS, Minitex with support from grant partners (DPLA, NYPL, MLS, RAILS, and others) designed and implemented a pre-test survey of librarians on ebooks. Respondents were asked to rate their awareness of SimplyE and related projects; rank desired features in library ebook systems; and describe ebook technology in their library. The survey was distributed broadly via mailing lists and social channels. The survey was open for one month and received 394 responses from the library community. 

Respondent profile
Roughly half of respondents were from public libraries (51%), followed by consortia (12%), academic libraries (6%); 31% belonged to another library type or declined to answer. 

Respondents are not familiar with [the project name] SimplyE
Survey respondents were more familiar with the term SimplyE than any other project name, but not by much. All projects had a majority response of ‘Not At All Familiar,’ with the best known, SimplyE with a high 67% unfamiliar rating. Respondents were shown a link to the Library Simplified site (www.librarysimplified.org) both before and after the survey. 

Respondents open to launching SimplyE and need more information
Given the lack of awareness, only 29% of respondents were likely or extremely likely to launch SimplyE,  Among respondents who answered about hurdles to launch, top concerns included staff time, cost, and training patrons to use a new app. Only 11.9% were unlikely or extremely unlikely to launch, and those who said they would not launch felt they needed more information or were still evaluating. Partners on the LEAP and SimplyE for Consortia grant disclosed their timeline.

Feature rank insights
Respondents ranked features grouped by type.  These features will be used to inform the Advisory Committee and the development team’s priorities. Desired features include audiobook compatibility; patron notification of available title; ability to search throughout book; and access to related works. 

Current ebook usage in libraries
Public libraries overwhelmingly use OverDrive (88%) as at least one of their ebook platforms. Other popular platforms include Axis360 (29%), OneClick Digital (23%), EBSCO (21%), BiblioBoard (18%) and Bibliotecha/3M Cloud Library. A majority of academic library respondents use Ebsco (65%) and Gale (54%). Consortia answering on behalf of member libraries reflected similar findings.

Respondents were supportive of making library ebook systems available on a wide variety of platforms. Kindle and Desktop versions of an app were ranked most important but respondents overwhelmingly saw a need for all. The survey did not list iOS and Android as an option, which respondents corrected in the ‘Other’ field. 

The most-used integrated library systems include Innovative Interfaces systems and SirsiDynix. Respondents were generally unaware of or did not promote the importance of authenticating through non-ILS systems, though of the options EZProxy was most used in libraries. 

Respondents mixed on their satisfaction with library ebook systems; prioritize goals that help patrons over staff
Respondents were fairly well divided on their opinions about ebook system with satisfied (37.5%), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (29.7%), and dissatisfied (27%). Patron-focused goals all had greatest weight on ‘Very Important’ while staff goals all had greatest weight on ‘Important.”

Conclusion
These responses will both guide future development and outreach decisions, as well as help measure the grant outcome of increasing awareness of SimplyE. SimplyE is built by libraries, for libraries, and SimplyE for Consortia grant partners are grateful to the community for this feedback.  We wish to thank those of you who responded to the survey.  We will be doing a follow-up survey in 2018. 

A few other tentative conclusions are possible from the results:

• There is a place for a truly good library eBook app: with only37.%% of those surveyed satisfied with their current systems--and the survey is likely to have been taken by those who have self-selected for an interest in library technology--some 2/3 of librarians want something better. 
• The power of SimplyE to provide interoperability in a library-owned and branded app is attractive. Its features are admired in theory. Getting away from vendor-branded apps that privilege content provided by the vendor is desirable for librarians. Since the app is very much on the right track, RF looks forward to its continued development and encourages librarians to investigate. Interest is picking up, with California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island all investigating consortial adoption and Brooklyn going live with a 2.0 version of the app in January of 2108.  Look for more developments soon!

A Library Copyright Statement about E-books

Paula McKinnon, Interim Director of Califa, has released a statement on copyright of library digital content that ReadersFirst strongly supports. Here it is.  RF encourages you to support copyright reform to benefit libraries as we try to share content in an increasingly digital world. Look for ways to get involved on this website and in news that will spread in the library world.

“We need your help!

As we all know, libraries have a great track record as stewards of the public good by encouraging the expansion of knowledge through sharing and preserving access to copyrighted and public domain printed works. We buy stuff. We put it on public shelves. We promote it. We lend it. We take care of it. 

With digital works, things are less clear.  The Copyright Office is taking input (in private) and talking about rewriting key parts of the act (with specific focus on Section 108 – the “exceptions” for libraries and archives), that could potentially change our role, access and ownership of the resources we buy for our constituencies and the public good.

Links for more info:

o   From the Washington Office District Dispatch http://www.districtdispatch.org/2016/07/top-secret-hush-hush/

o   From ARL http://policynotes.arl.org/?p=1408

o   From the Society of American Archivists http://www2.archivists.org/saa-statement-on-draft-revision-of-section-108#.V7NzsaKrKao

o   From the University of Virginia http://news.library.virginia.edu/2016/08/16/virginia-university-libraries-tell-congress-needless-copyright-revision-could-threaten-our-mission/

Califa has prepared a Copyright Reform Statement (attached) from a library ebook (and more generally, epublications) perspective.  Our goal at Califa is to get the ball rolling and for the library industry to make our collective voices heard regarding the impact of these issues, specifically around ebooks. How? By having libraries and library organizations sign on to this statement.  Our goal is also to educate and inform library staff about the implications of copyright reform for libraries and to get the word out about the issues and solutions.

What’s the problem? Libraries don’t own the epublications we’re purchasing because of non-negotiable licensing terms. Where print materials that we purchase sit safely on library shelves without threat of being rendered inaccessible by any third party; this is not the case for ebooks.  We can’t put them on our own eshelves. We can’t ensure access to the public despite purchasing the content for public use and agreeing to established DRM terms. We are pouring money into epub collections that can be made inaccessible based on third party and/or publisher licensing terms. And we aren’t afforded the opportunity to negotiate these terms.

What’s the solution?  Publishers and ebook vendors should negotiate acceptable licensing terms with libraries rather than present terms that offer libraries 2 choices: a) accept the terms or b) don’t provide access to the materials through the public library. Let libraries own what they purchase. Let libraries host their own purchased content on platforms that conform to DRM standards. And amend copyright law to ensure licensing terms do not ‘trump’ copyright exceptions, provisions and fair use protections.   

Let’s discuss!

What are your thoughts about this issue, about this statement, about what we can and should be doing while this topic is beginning to glow white hot?

We have had several partners agree to sign on to this statement including RAILS, State Library of CT and Readers First. Others are running it by their respective boards.  Will you consider signing on and spreading the word within your organization and membership?

And we have put together some ideas to help spread the word:

·         Post on Readers First (Done! :-)

·         Post to change.org and point to it from many places so that the public and library/archive/museum/publishing professionals can sign;

·         Distribute to our respective consortial members.

·         Post on our websites / social media –create a hashtag campaign to continue the conversation online

·         Send to Copyright Office

·         Publish articles in state and national library publications

·         Start conversations with your ebook vendors to see where they stand or send to ebook vendors and publishers for their comment/support.

Other suggestions? We need your voice!

I look forward to our conversation and shared learning around copyright reform