Cities Take Libraries' Side on E-Books

Public libraries, unhappy over what they view as high prices and stringent terms for e-books to lend their patrons, picked up an ally in their ongoing battle with publishers: the National League of Cities (NLC), which represents some 19,000 cities and towns across the U.S.

The NLC recently issued a press release backing the efforts of public libraries to pressure publishers into making more e-books available for library loans, allowing libraries to purchase e-books outright rather than license them, and reducing prices charged to libraries, which are typically higher than consumer retail prices.

Library organizations, especially the American Library Association, have been waging a campaign to stir up grass-roots support for their ability to acquire and lend e-book titles. While the campaign mainly involves community libraries, academic libraries are watching the response. The league’s endorsement included kudos to several governmental bodies that passed legislation calling for investigations into publishers’ e-book policies for libraries.

“City officials can protect the library’s function to provide access to e-books and other materials by encouraging oversight on publishers’ licensing practices,” said the release. “That can mean adopting resolutions like that developed in Montgomery County, MD, or urging their state legislators, Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission to look into the unfair e-books policies.”

New SIIA Report Focuses on OER

With more and more educators using open educational resources (OER), the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) created its Guide on the Use of Open Educational Resources in K-12 and Postsecondary Education. The 34-page manual provides information on various copyright and licensing issues involved in using open educational resources.

“SIIA expects that educational needs will be addressed moving forward by a mix of instructional materials, including OERs,” the authors of the guide wrote. “SIIA and this guide are focused on helping public officials, instructors, and content providers better understand the various OER models, as well as the total costs to consider in determining the appropriate strategy for developing and implementing a particular educational resource.”

The report details some of the pitfalls of OER, including the resources necessary to scale their use and concerns over cost shifting instead of cost savings. At the same time, it presents some of the highlights of OER, such as their long-term value and having teachers more involved in developing curriculum and resources.

“It appears that OER and the related educational, business, and intellectual property license models are here to stay,” the authors wrote. “In the end, the greatest value of OER may not be in cost savings, but in changing the relationship of educators and students to their learning resources by empowering them to help author, customize, and share them. Either way, all stakeholders will need to carefully consider and appropriately adjust to OER as an important educational element.” 

Libraries face new e-book business models

Business models for digital content and e-books are still evolving. It was interesting to see in last week's NYTimes a piece about how even libraries are still seeing the business models change. Interesting, because libraries, at least within the educational space, have been working with e-journals, e-books, and digital models for quite some time, relatively speaking. However, it seems that as e-books gain popularity and adoption, libraries are learning that the licensing of e-books for distribution is once again not the same as acquiring the physical copy.

The NYTimes piece describes a new business model that affects libraries that effectively "lend" ebooks to patrons. Under the new model, libraries will be limited on the total number of times an ebook can be lent, at which point the library must renew the licenses to permit further patron access. So much for e-books being cheaper or building a permanent digital collection the way a physical book collection might have been cultivated in the past.

The restrictions on library lending demonstrates some of the deeper implications that might play out in the future world of digital content. We (whether consumers or even libraries) may never "own" our content again. Instead each acquisition of content will be governed by a complex subscription model that may cause our book to 'go away' when certain conditions are reached. It reminds me of an incident a year or so ago when a company with an e-reader device withdrew access to content individuals had "purchased" when the licensing rights changed. What does the change in ownership models mean for how we view knowledge -- and for how eventually governments or other entitites could control what content we can see or access? Suddenly Fareinheit 451 seems a little less like science fiction.

Wiley e-Textbook pilot at the University of Texas at Austin kicks off

According to a recent article, the Wiley e-textbook pilot at the University of Texas at Austin began on January 20. The pilot includes free e-textbooks for 1300 students enrolled in six different classes, in an effort to test how useful e-textbooks are for faculty and students. Additionally, for students that prefer a physical copy of the text, the campus store will print any textbook at a cost of 1.5 cents per page. As noted in a previous posting, the university is providing the content via an institutional licensing model and therefore the content will only be free initially. If the program is successful, students could pay $25-45 a book in licensing fees.

The article also provides some commentary from Michael Granof, chairman of the University Co-op, who fears that if the program continues after the pilot and the university takes responsibility for supplying the e-textbooks, it could undermine the viability of the co-op bookstore. He explains, “There's no reason for a university to get involved with licensing. If a publisher has an e-book available, the instructor can put the link to the book on the course Web site and the student can click the link and buy the book from the Co-op, just as they would for any other book they bought.”

For institutions that decide to digitally license content and provide e-textbooks via this method, the impact to campus stores and institutions could be significant. Since profit earned by many stores goes back into the institution to support things like financial aid or student services, licensing models could have a double financial impact for institutions (and students) – creating new costs on one side, while reducing the revenue available to cover those costs and others on the flip side. If the rising cost of content licensing in the library is any indicator, licensing solutions for institutions on the textbook side are likely to only yield a short-term cost savings for students.

Recording Industry Proposes Taxing Students Instead of Suing Them

The Techdirt blog last week unveiled a new approach to addressing content piracy by students. Both Techdirt, and subsequently The Chronicle’s Wired Campus, noted that Warner Music Group is negotiating with several universities to conduct an experiment in “voluntary blanket licensing.” Under the program, colleges would charge and collect a flat rate fee/tax, for a nonprofit organization managed by the recording industry. That nonprofit would distribute the revenues to artists. The Techdirt site includes a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed program produced by EDUCAUSE. The Techdirt blog does raise some interesting concerns: such as whether the tax is truly voluntary or not, and whether the model would stifle other innovations that may prove to be better solutions for students, institutions, and artists. The posting notes:

There's obviously something appealing about ending the lawsuits and letting people file share freely. But, it's quite problematic to add an effective "tax" when none is necessary. Plenty of other business models, such as those we've outlined here and elsewhere can suffice to fund the creation of music. The presentation says that a nonprofit has been set up to handle the money, claiming that it's "to be clear we intend to operate with good intentions and not profit as a motive," but given the way the industry has acted in the past, that's difficult to take at face value. Also, this isn't really a license. It's a "covenant not to sue" -- meaning that lawsuits could still result.

As a colleague of mine is fond of saying, “nonprofit is a tax status, not a business model,” meaning, that nonprofits do not have to run in the red. They can derive revenues that exceed their costs, i.e., make a profit. If such is the case, will there be a refund back to the institutions and students, or will that excess profit go back to the recording industry? There is nothing wrong with the recording industry profitable. It is necessarily if the industry is to survive and prosper. The concern would be that an involuntary tax be employed to students, when not all students may take advantage of the service. There are other potential business models developing in and around higher education that could also work. Institutional licensing has some other risks, such as long-term costs versus the initial cost ramifications.

A final observation, made by another colleague of mine, is that at the end of the EDUCAUSE PowerPoint presentation there is a note that how this model could lead to all other content following a similar model – including text. In the library space we hear claims of a “serials crisis” brought on, in large part, by the growing licensing costs associated licensing fees applied by the content holders. Perhaps different groups in higher education should fund a study or policy paper review to evaluate the true implications (costs and savings) to students and institutions presented by content licensing over both the short and long terms.