They do not go missing or get torn and tattered, but e-books are posing concerns for US libraries as publishers insist on restrictive and costly digital licensing contracts, librarians say.
“We have to pay for every single checkout, have major limitations on how many copies we can have ... and a lot of other arbitrary issues,” said Alison Macrina, a librarian and director of the Library Freedom Project, an advocacy group.
Digital collections — including e-books, audiobooks, music and more — have become increasingly central to libraries’ work, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic when they allowed lending to continue during lockdowns.
Illustration: Louise Ting
Patrons checked out a record 662 million e-books and other digital products from libraries last year, 19 percent more than the previous year, according to OverDrive, a major platform.
Over the past decade-and-a-half, the handful of companies that control most US e-book production and distribution have started to lease these works to libraries — rather than selling copies outright.
Dubbed “the Netflix model” by some librarians, licensing is not only more expensive, but some worry it allows companies to track reading habits, remove books or censor content.
“Major publishers offer no option for the vast majority of e-books to be owned at all by a consumer, whether an individual or a library. You buy a license to view the file,” said Lia Holland from Fight for the Future, a digital rights non-profit.
The clash of interests between publishers and libraries has resulted in a series of legal battle in the past few years.
Publishing companies worry that constraints on e-book licensing could hurt the sector’s economics, while libraries say the higher fees and other restrictions undermine their mission to make books easily available and encourage reading.
“It’s an illustration of the vehemence of this push toward profit maximization at the cost of an educated populace,” said Holland, campaigns and communications director at Fight for the Future, which has been meeting federal lawmakers on the issue.
A number of US states have considered laws to oblige publishers to make e-books available to libraries on “reasonable terms.” However, publishers and authors have said the proposals would lower the value of literary works, and a US federal judge in 2022 ruled one such state law in Maryland was unconstitutional.
Two copyright lawsuits now threaten further restrictions to how libraries can make digital works available.
In 2020, four major publishers sued the Internet Archive, a non-profit library with about 44 million print materials and also the world’s largest archive of the Internet.
The publishers seek to limit what is known as controlled digital lending — the library’s ability to purchase a book, scan it and then lend the digital copy.
Music publishers also brought a second lawsuit over some of the group’s audio recordings.
“It’s about ownership — library ownership versus licensing — and the tension that exists between those two ways of managing materials,” said Chris Freeland, director of library services at the Internet Archive.
The issue is crucial for reader access as well as preservation, Freeland said. “We can’t preserve what we don’t own.”
Terrence Hart, the general counsel for an industry trade organization, the Association of American Publishers, last year said the “Internet Archive’s industrial scale format-shifting activities constitute copyright infringement.”
“There is simply no legal support for the notion that Internet Archive or a library may convert millions of e-books from print books for public distribution without the consent of, or compensation to, the authors and publishers,” he said.
A judge sided with the publishers last year, but the Internet Archive appealed and the case is ongoing.
Longstanding fights over content ownership have expanded to control of distribution channels, said Dave Hansen, executive director of Authors Alliance, which represents authors and submitted a brief in the Internet Archive lawsuit.
He said there are four major e-book publishers in the US, each with their own rules.
“These private contracts, private terms and private pieces of technology have supplanted the more generally applicable rules that we have under copyright,” he said.
Hansen pointed to a 2022 incident when publisher John Wiley and Sons suddenly removed 1,380 titles from a collection of academic e-books that many libraries use.
The experience “demonstrated the power that publishers had to unilaterally dictate what kind of content users could get access to,” he said.
Wiley later reversed the decision. It said in a statement it was committed to providing students with affordable e-books and expanding the range of titles available.
New technologies are also being used by US school boards in their efforts to comply with state laws banning material that lawmakers have ruled to be offensive.
School book bans have increased substantially in the past few years and become more comprehensive, said PEN America, which tracked 5,894 efforts in 41 states from 2021 to last year.
In Iowa, Mason City Community Schools used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze book content to ensure compliance with a state law passed last year requiring the removal of works depicting sexual acts.
“With thousands of books to manage across nine building-level libraries, AI was a tool to efficiently narrow down the list of potential non-compliant books,” Mason City schools superintendent Pat Hamilton said in an e-mail.
In December last year, a federal judge blocked implementation of the state law, pending a legal challenge.
Yet the new use of this technology echoes past lessons around AI and social media moderation, said Emile Ayoub, counsel in the liberty and national security program with the Brennan Center for Justice, a think-tank.
“Again and again we’ve seen the limitations of these tools — they’re unreliable, unable to understand content and nuance, they’re biased and can disproportionately impact minority communities,” he said.
A tool such as Chat GPT — the “generative” AI program released a year ago — offers a veneer of objectivity, even while producing inconsistent results, he said.
“Broad and vague book bans like in Iowa are a basic threat to free speech,” Ayoub said. “And when you use generative AI tools to comply with those bans, it only increases that risk.”
Researchers with the Harvard Library Innovation Lab last year tested several “large language models” (LLMs) that power tools such as Chat GPT — asking the models to provide justifications to ban particular books.
They found that safeguards against harmful requests were “unpredictable,” with models often going back and forth but complying 75 percent of the time.
“The key point to remember here is that variability is not a bug, but a feature of LLMs,” the lab’s Matteo Cargnelutti and Kristi Mukk said in e-mail.
Jack Cushman, the lab’s director, said: “For now you’ll learn a lot more by talking to a real librarian.”
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past