From the IA: Vanishing Culture: A Report on Our Fragile Cultural Record

As if the often ruinous big publisher prices and unfavorable license terms weren’t enough to prevent libraries from building and maintaining a deep and sustainable digital collection, the move to streaming—and often deliberately excluding libraries from access—is also becoming an issue.

Luca Messarra (of Stanford University) and Chris Freeland and Juliya Ziskina (of the Internet Archive) have released a report on this issue. It’s worth a read.

“In today’s digital landscape, corporate interests, shifting distribution models, and malicious cyber attacks are threatening public access to our shared cultural history.

• The rise of streaming platforms and temporary licensing agreements means that sound recordings, books, films, and other cultural artifacts that used to be owned in physical form, are now at risk—in digital form—of disappearing from public view without ever being archived.

• Cyber attacks, like those against the Internet Archive, British Library, Seattle Public Library, Toronto Public Library and Calgary Public Library, are a new threat to digital culture, disrupting the infrastructure that secures our digital heritage and impeding access to information at community scale.

When digital materials are vulnerable to sudden removal—whether by design or by attack—our collective memory is compromised, and the public’s ability to access its own history is at risk. 

Vanishing Culture: A Report on Our Fragile Cultural Record (download) aims to raise awareness of these growing issues. The report details recent instances of cultural loss, highlights the underlying causes, and emphasizes the critical role that public-serving libraries and archives must play in preserving these materials for future generations. By empowering libraries and archives legally, culturally, and financially, we can safeguard the public’s ability to maintain access to our cultural history and our digital future.”

Current laws unbalance copyright to the advantage of rights holders and to the detriment of “the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts,” not to mention to the detriment of the sharing and preservation of the intellectual record. Knowing the details of the problem is important for working for change. Give it a read.

What Banned Book Would You Highlight and Yay, NJ

DPLA invites submission for Banned Books to which you’d like to bring special attention. These titles might be a little lesser known than the most frequently banned ones, but very much worthy of attention. You can submit selections here.

In other news, the Banned Books Club is now open to anyone who wishes to see it, rather than just being limited to areas where books have been banned. Yes, librarians can use digital to fight banning all over the county. Thanks, DPLA!

Here’s what you’ll see:

Submit Your "Banned Book of the Week"!

DPLA is excited to invite you to participate in our "Banned Book of the Week" social media series highlighting books under threat of censorship.

In July 2023, the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) launched The Banned Book Club, in partnership with Lyrasis and The Palace Project, to ensure all readers have access to the books they want to read. Our #BannedBookClub social media series, which we kicked off earlier this year, shares banned titles on DPLA’s Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter feeds.

Lead curator Jill Egan, Miriam Tulio, and other members of DPLA's Curation Corps have helped select previously featured titles.

Now, we're inviting you to share your favorite banned books with us, so we can share them with others!

Please fill out this form to submit a Banned Book for DPLA and our partners to lift up in a future "Banned Book of the Week" post. DPLA and the Curation Corps will review all submissions and let you know when your selection will be shared via DPLA's social media channels. 

We hope you’ll reshare these posts on your own feeds, and those of your organizations, to spread even awareness about The Banned Book Club and our collective commitment to free access to all books!

In related news, congratulations to the legislators, librarians, and residents of New Jersey. A bill has now become law to protect librarians and prevent book banning. Great work, and welcome to the growing club of states that are ensuring that “free people read freely.”

Interesting Law Article on Library Ebooks

Thanks to Jeremy Johannessen of COSLA for sharing an interesting article.

I caution up front that it is a VERY deep dive (38 pages); however, if you’d like a legal perspective on state efforts to promote a fair library ebook market, it is worth a read.

https://www.aallnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/LLJ_116n3.pdf#:~:text=State%20Strategies%20for%20Fair%20E-Book%20Licensing:%20Lessons%20from

There are some minor errors. For example, we in libraries now do have access to Audible titles through Palace. 

The article ignores some very capable recent advocacy efforts by librarians with this statement, though on the whole it is true:  “Finally, librarians need additional training on how to be better advocates for libraries against aggressive, seasoned copyright attorneys.”

We often see a majority of legislators persuaded by library talking points. Maryland, for example, did not have a single negative vote against its legislation. We need to learn better to watch for and fight against procedural tricks by a minority of legislators that have derailed some bills..

I take some issue with the first half of the following statement (we did have legal advice in Maryland, and the authors themselves say there were mistakes in the Maryland judge’s reading of the laws), but the second half of the statement is certainly true:  “Maryland made mistakes in how it drafted its statute and defended the subsequent litigation brought by publishers, but publishers marshal more formidable resources than public libraries, including regulatory capture in the U.S. Copyright Office.”

Yes, we are up against billions of $$, some of which has apparently been put in to the coffers of those who wish to derail state efforts to create a more fair market for libraries.

 While banning efforts and our fight against them are and should be our main effort, fair ebook prices remain a big issue.  I hope that Maryland will once again join the other state efforts someday. But if even one state were to pass the revised language, it might at least prompt federal action.

But enough nit-picking, The article is an excellent review with some good suggestions. It’s conclusion is powerful:

Libraries are the bedrock of a free and educated society. Despite providing publishers with millions of dollars in annual revenue, incalculable amounts of free publicity, and developing their customer base of readers, libraries are punished by publishers with unfair and punitive terms for purchasing and licensing digital books and audiobooks.

It is clear from the current multitude of state legislation that state legislators care about helping libraries. State legislatures should look to the Library Futures model statute to create a statute that creates fairer contract language. The model statute’s improved language will pass legal scrutiny where Maryland’s statute failed. Libraries should also consider leveraging price-gouging statutes and AG multistate litigation to counter publisher abuses. Finally, librarians need additional training on how to be better advocates for libraries against aggressive, seasoned copyright attorneys. A successful legislative and litigation strategy will allow libraries to continue to thrive and fulfill their missions in helping all to access knowledge and learning.

Let’s work to make it so.

Viva, CDL! Thanks, BLC

Marc Hoffeditz of Boston Library Consortium (BLC) has shared very interesting news: the BLC “is pleased to announce the release of a new report, ReShare CDL: Software & Workflows for Consortial CDL for ILL. This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (LG-254935-OLS-23) and the Davis Educational Foundation. The report provides an overview of BLC and Project ReShare’s engagement with CDL for ILL to date.”

Despite the recent legal setback for the Internet Archive in what is arguably a flawed ruling, librarians continue to explore Controlled Digital Lending of materials.

The report introduces a system for scalably sharing interlibrary loan books through CDL:

“Instead of showing the market’s ability to rise to challenges and build solutions to meet emerging needs, CDL reveals that the market largely lacks this capability, especially when it comes to developing technology solutions attainable for most libraries.” Excerpted from an article in The Scholarly Kitchen, this bold statement articulated the position in which many libraries and consortia found themselves when searching for a plausible and scalable solution to support the practice of controlled digital lending (CDL). Seizing on this gap in the technology landscape, Boston Library Consortium (BLC) and Index Data laid the groundwork for the development and eventual release of ReShare CDL, a modern solution to facilitate and broker consortial CDL workflows and realize what the existing marketplace failed to do. While BLC has deferred implementation in the immediate future, we were compelled to share this report for others to learn about CDL and make informed decisions about potential adoptions. Capturing the great amount of work and information amassed over the past several years, this report details:

• A brief history of BLC’s engagement with CDL to date

• An introduction to the ReShare CDL interface and functionality

• Adaptable workflows to execute consortial CDL requests

• Future development directions for ReShare CDL, Project ReShare, and BLC”

The report is careful to say that it intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice about CDL. Still, the prospect of “a collaborative initiative designed to create an open, community-owned and governed resource sharing platform for libraries” is intriguing. Some publishers seem to think that any digital sharing can only be done via licensing. Many works aren’t and never will be digitized for licensing, including nearly all titles published before about 1990. Under those conditions, libraries will be unable to do some of their most important work—the preservation and sharing of the cultural record—without putting increasingly rare and fragile print copies at risk. Digital as has unbalanced copyright, giving too much to rights holders and too little attention to the need to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” We in libraries must continue to advocate for change. A system for sharing via CDL is an important step towards a better future for researchers and readers.

"Untapped Potential": An Important Study of Library Digital Lending

Paul Crosby (of Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University) and Tessa Barrington, Airlie Lawson, and Rebecca Giblin (of Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne) have released an important study of library digital lending, Untapped Potential: Results from the Australian Literary Heritage Project.

The group established “an independent publishing imprint, Untapped, to re-publish out of print but culturally important titles. As well as rescuing 161 lost books, the research team used the data generated throughout the process to help answer important research questions that couldn’t be answered otherwise.”

They summarize as follows:

1. We found no evidence that library lending of Untapped’s ebooks ‘cannibalised’ sales - and indeed some evidence that it increased sales for certain books.

2. There was substantial demand from the public to borrow and buy the Untapped titles as ebooks.

3. Library promotional activities can strongly influence the books borrowed by readers.

4. Re-publication of these previously out of print titles opened up new streams of income for authors.

5. Participating authors and heirs also enjoyed substantial noneconomic benefits from the project.

6. Authors faced a wide range of obstacles in reclaiming their rights to out of print titles, adding support to the case for minimum baseline rights to better protect their interests.

7. Library control of e-lending infrastructure could improve access to data and help direct more money to authors and publishers.

We in libraries hypothesize that our digital lending, and indeed all our lending, helps support a heathy reading ecosystem and benefits authors and publishers. The publishers know it. Why else do they sponsor and attend library conferences so assiduously? We have some evidence for our hypothesis. This study adds to that evidence nicely.

While it would be a small leap from this study to suggest a corollary, doesn’t it seem likely that more favorable digital content terms on existing titles from certain publishers, far from “cannibalizing” sales, would lead to more sales to the public and not just to libraries? It certainly seems to work that way with print. Perhaps people don’t want to “own” ebooks they way they do print books. It would be interesting if a Big 5 publisher at least gave it a try.

I know, I know dream on, librarian. Fat chance, hunh?

The Defense Arguments in Llano Case Are A Threat To Libraries

This case isn’t specifically about library digital content (although the county library did lose its OverDrive account, later replaced by another vendor).

It goes to the very heart of our work, however: will libraries be able to control all their collections, print and digital, or will local (or state) government be able to control what are in our collections, infringing our most cherished values?

The hearing was Wednesday.  You can listen to it  (an hour and ten minutes), if you want: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-50224_9-24-2024.mp3

A quick and greatly simplified summary:

 The attorney defending the county and Florida’s solicitor general (on behalf of 17 states) argue that a 1995 First Amendment decision by this same court should be overturned. That decision said a school board removing a book based on its subject mater was a violation of the Constitution.

 They argue that libraries are funded by the government, that library collections should therefore be considered “government speech,” that the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral, and therefore that the funding agency can control the collection without violating the First Amendment. They further argue that librarians are government agents and cannot make collection decisions without the “government” being allowed to decide what to choose and not to choose.

It seems a considerable leap from saying librarians should be allowed to make decisions to say that, for example, a county government could remove books from a library that the librarians wish to keep. It is, however, a leap that the defense is not only willing but eager to make.

The plaintiffs attorneys argue that libraries are public institutions, that the First Amendment is applicable in them, and that government entities cannot suppress books because of objections to their subject matter.

The argument that library collections are government speech has been shot down in many recent cases in other circuit courts. It is, again, a threat to basic library values. Even the county’s attorney conceded that his argument could lead to libraries that reflect only the limited views of one political party. I live in Maryland, where we are fortunate that our laws wisely say that libraries are to be “established free from political influence.”  The 5th Circuit has some judges who seem happy to support the government speech argument and to disagree with the courts upholding the freedom to read. Their ruling could send this case to the Supreme Court.  An adverse ruling there could be a wedge nationally to let local officials remove any books they don’t like, disadvantaging everyone who would like to explore ideas freely in a pluralistic society.

For a deeper exploration, please see  https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/96015-on-appeal-llano-county-seeks-book-ban-ruling-that-would-upend-public-libraries.html

The last two paragraphs of this piece are worth consideration: 

EveryLibrary founder John Chrastka told PW that if the court buys the government speech argument, it would be as big as overturning Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court case that sets forth a test for what constitutes obscenity.

"Allowing the Government Speech Doctrine to creep into the management of public libraries will upend everything that a public library is supposed to be," EveryLibrary reps said in a statement on the oral argument. "The outcome of this case will set a crucial precedent for the role of libraries in our democratic society, and it must reaffirm that libraries exist to serve the public’s right to access diverse, lawful ideas—not to promote government-sanctioned ideologies." 

No matter what your political views, if you care about libraries as institutions supporting all in their communities, find a way to voice your support. Speak up locally. Support groups that fight for the freedom to read. If nothing else, sign the EveryLibrary petition. This is about libraries, but even more. It is about freedom. Not the false freedom promoted by groups like the intellectually bankrupt Moms for Liberty, for whom freedom consists of denying freedoms to everyone else. The freedom to read all perspectives to be exposed to ideas and culture without having to pull out a credit card to buy things rather than experiencing them through that great and effective steward of our joint funding, the public library.

IA LIbrary Leaders Forum and Celebrations

RF Friend Chris Freeland has sent an update on the Internet Archive’s annual October events:

This year, our Library Leaders Forum will only be virtual. Normally we host an in-person discussion alongside our annual celebration, but we're taking action on feedback from last year's gathering & pausing this year while we rethink the event. Instead, we are hosting our virtual Library Leaders Forum on Thursday, October 17 [1 pm Eastern, 10 am Pacific]. You’ll hear from Internet Archive staff about our emerging library services and updates on existing efforts, as well as updates from our partners. How do libraries empower research in the 21st century? Join in our discussion!

Register now for the virtual Library Leaders Forum: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/library-leaders-forum-2024-virtual-tickets-1025035437587

We are still hosting our in-person celebrations, which are great fun for those who will be in the Bay Area on October 22 & 23. You can learn more & register for those events at https://blog.archive.org/2024/08/19/celebrate-with-the-internet-archive-on-october-22nd-23rd/ Use code IAVIP at checkout for complimentary tickets. There's also a livestream of the program on the 23rd from our Great Room, starting at 7pm PT.

Speakers from the Internet Archive include:

• Brewster Kahle, founder & digital librarian, Internet Archive

• Chris Freeland, library services

• Elizabeth Macleod, book digitization

• Liz Rosenberg, donations

• Jude Coelho, interlibrary loan

• Jefferson Bailey, Archive-It

• Mek, Open Library

• Mark Graham, Wayback Machine

• Luca Messarra, Vanishing Culture

Community projects include:

• Andrea Mills, Internet Archive Canada

• Jennie Rose Halperin, Library Futures

• Charlie Barlow, Boston Library Consortium

• Dave Hansen, Authors Alliance

• David Moore, BRIET

  Looks like a great line-up. Hope to “see” you there!

PW "Freedom to Read" Issue: Leila Green Little's "Modern Day McCarthyists"

Publishers Weekly’s Freedom to Read issue has many must-read articles, but I feel compelled to highlight one: Leila Green Little's "Modern Day McCarthyists: The Fight Against Book Bans in Llano County.” (While you are about it, however, also check out “The Resistance: Five People Standing Up to Book Banners” and so many others.)

Little’s (I apologize if it should properly be Green Little) is one of the people from Llano, Texas, bravely fighting the local county commissioners’ narrow-minded efforts to gut the public library—an effort that has alas been all-too chillingly effective.

The late Joseph McCarthy would be proud to see his legacy carried on by the hate of so many who are waging a war, ostensibly against books but really against Americans they don’t like and indeed against the use of government funding to represent all Americans and deny the promise America has made but not yet fulfilled for so many.

Here’s a hopeful snippet, but do read how the local officials have undermined a democratic institution:

The lawsuit brought by my fellow plaintiffs and me may very well create case law that will positively affect public libraries across America. But lawsuits alone can’t save the library in Llano—or any anywhere else—from death by a thousand cuts. Only community support can do that. This surge in book banning will end only when we collectively demonstrate that book banning will not win elections, cannot win in court, and that attacking librarians and educators is broadly unacceptable.

That lawsuit’s next chapter will play out on September 28th. It is no exaggeration to say that it will be consequential for libraries everywhere, even in states with Freedom to Read bills. If the side supported by the conservative states filing amicus briefs to say libraries are “government speech” and collection and programming can be controlled by local elected officials wins, there could be a legal wedge for undermining the independence of libraries everywhere. If that decision were to go to the current Supreme Court, can anyone be confident of good sense prevailing?

Let us hope that Ms. Little is correct that they “cannot win in court.” The alternative is frightening indeed.

In a related matter, please consider signing EveryLibrary’s Petition against Project 2025. “Libraries are mentioned multiple times throughout Project 2025. On page Five they call for arresting and registering all librarians as sex offenders.” Talk about misguided and misdirected rot. To (somewhat mis-) quote Mr. Stephen Colbert. “Sex offenses? That isn’t why people go into librarianship. It’s why they go into the clergy.”

How Much Does Obama's Summer Reading List Cost Your Library?

Laura Crossett and Jennie Rose Halperin posed this interesting question, so we looked into it.

Turns out—no surprise to those following ReadersFirst--not so very much in print but a lot in digital.

Read their post here.

A few highlights:

Former President Barack Obama recently released his highly anticipated annual summer reading list. We love a good list, but it got us thinking about what it takes for libraries to offer these books to their patrons. We’ve written about Obama’s books before – The New Yorker reported that 949 copies of his latest memoir cost the New York Public Library $51,962, the equivalent of 3,000 print copies.(!) Play the games on Ebooks for Us to learn more.

The print books cost an average of $16.38 each – $225.84 for all fourteen titles. The library owns those books – it can keep them for as long as they hold together. The average cost of each ebook, when licensed from Overdrive, came to $54.57. And as a reminder, that $54.57 is a license–it gives the library the right to lend the book for two years (or for a number of checkouts, with both number set by the publisher).

As one of the authors on Obama’s reading list (and indie press/intellectual freedom advocate!) Hanif Abdurruqib titled his book, There’s Always This Year. But instead, we have to paraphrase Bob Marley, another Obama favorite: “Them [big publisher’s] Belly Full, but We Hungry.”

How long will we stand for this?

Does Digital Ownership Matter for Libraries? Let's Talk About It

Collaborating For Access: Does Digital Ownership Matter For Libraries?

Wednesday, October 16, 2024, at 1p ET

From the DPLA, COSLA, and ReadersFirst:

What if libraries could circulate ebooks the same way they circulate print books: one user at a time with the ability to transfer titles to other hosts and libraries as they see fit? Can this model, now offered by dozens of indie publishers to libraries nationwide, help us all better fulfill our missions in an increasingly digital space? 

In this Collaborating for Access webinar, the eighth in an ongoing series presented by COSLA, DPLA and ReadersFirst, we will discuss the recent announcement by DPLA and Independent Publishers Group of their groundbreaking agreement that now allows libraries to own, rather than merely license, digital books they acquire through the Palace Marketplace. But how much does digital ownership really matter? Join us to learn more about the new model, discuss why it is vital for libraries to own the digital items they collect, explore how ownership could reshape library digital collecting, and think about the future of circulation services. 

Moderator: Michael Blackwell, Director, St. Mary’s County Library

Speakers: 

• Christina de Castell // Chief Librarian & CEO, Vancouver Public Library

• Micah May // Director of Ebook Services, Digital Public Library of America  

• Michael Weinberg // Executive Director, Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy, New York University Law School

• Richard Williams // Vice President, Independent Publishers Group

Register here.

Hope to “see” you there!