2023-03-10 SPLAT Curiosity Report: Volume 13, Issue 8

Featured Story

Fighting for the Future

Over two years ago, four major book publishers filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive, a nonprofit digital library that provides free e-books to online readers. It typically allows patrons to check out an e-book for up to two weeks- and it would only loan as many copies as it owned (one book for one patron). While this model has always caused contention between the Internet Archive and traditional publishers, the tension escalated in 2020 when the Internet Archive formed a National Emergency Library during COVID. This meant they were temporarily removing their owned copy to loan ratio- as in, anyone who wanted to read the book could do so, no wait required.

In the summer of 2020, the four book publishers (John Wiley & Sons, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, and Penguin Random House) filed the lawsuit, which accused the Internet Archive of “willful mass copyright infringement”. They further stated that, “IA does not seek to ‘free knowledge’; it seeks to destroy the carefully calibrated ecosystem that makes books possible in the first place” (Jahner).

The Internet Archive argued that their acquisition and distribution systems work in the same way that physical libraries do. And while many author organizations and smaller book publishers agree with the four suing publishers, other groups strongly stand against them. Those on the side of the Internet Archive argue that traditional publishers have no proof that IA’s distribution of free e-books have caused harm to the publishing industry. Juliya M. Ziskina, a Library Futures’ fellow, stated that “controlled digital lending doesn’t replace e-books” (Ziskina).

Attorney Jacqueline Charlesworth, who previously worked as a Copyright Office general counsel, does not agree. She argued that, while the Copyright Office has considered changing library exemptions in the past, they have not created any laws that would allow this type of open lending. She used educational needs as a comparison: “Students need books, but that doesn’t mean you can walk into a book store and steal them” (Charlesworth).

Charlesworth said that publishers already provide distribution licenses for their books to libraries (and that IA was disrupting that model), but Jason Schultz, a professor of intellectual property law at NY University, argued that the current licensing often requires libraries to re-license rights for one book multiple times (Jahner).
As both a library employee and a published author, I find this lawsuit particularly compelling. There are several competing aspects tangled in this case, so much so that I haven’t quite decided where I stand. While I of course love libraries and our ability to provide free access to those in need, I also believe copyright law is a vital aspect of the publishing world. Even in my current position as Molstead’s interlibrary loan supervisor, I have to work within the realm of copyright restrictions. We are limited in how much of a book we can send to another library. We are limited in how often we can request recently-published articles from other libraries. It can be frustrating, but it’s also necessary in protecting the rights of the creators.

However, traditional publishers can often create unnecessary problems for the literary world as well. For example, Penguin Random House has been attempting to merge with Simon & Schuster since November of 2020- a move that could threaten the competitive buying between publishing houses (bad news for authors, good news for publishers). The four suing houses may not only be interested in the continued one-to-one ratio for lending, but also in their ability to constantly update their licenses (meaning more money for them and less for libraries).

For now, the case is still in motion and people continue to argue their positions. Douglas Preston, president of The Authors Guild, released a statement in support of the publishers’ lawsuit. In his statement, he said, “The Internet Archive hopes to fool the public by calling its piracy website a ‘library’; but there’s a more accurate term for taking what you don’t own: ‘stealing’” (Preston). Despite Preston’s stance, several authors have come forward to show their support for the Internet Archive. As of October 18, 2022, a petition has more than 1,000 author signatures. Many of the signees have written statements of their support, and several of those comments can be found here: https://www.valuewalk.com/1000-authors-speak-out-for-the-digital-future-of-libraries-ask-publishers-to-halt-harmful-actions-rhetoric/.

Regardless of which side you find yourself on (or if you’re like me and you’re somewhere in the middle), this lawsuit could bring significant changes for the digital future of libraries.

Works Cited:

Additional Resources:
https://www.fightforthefuture.org/Authors-For-Libraries

By Brooke Horton

Fail Forward

We’ve all been there. You pour your heart into a program, and no one shows up. You try something new, and you fall on your face. Sound familiar? Fail Forward is the place to share your failures, and give you the opportunity to share what you learned from them. Did you promote your program in a different way after no one showed up? Maybe you took a new approach to the new thing you were excited about? Awesome! Share your story via our online form so others can learn, and realize that failure is often part of the process.

Failing Forward

I recently had the opportunity to make a t-shirt for a SPLAT project using heat transfer vinyl and a CriCut craft cutter. The design was delicate, and I made sure to be very careful while removing the excess vinyl from the design.
 
Ironing on the design with an iron at home took longer than expected. After about 30 minutes everything had adhered. (Or so I thought.) Next step, pack the shirt and wear it at ILA, right? Yes…. for day 1. Unfortunately the design didn’t make it to day 2. Next time I’ll use much more pressure when ironing and warm my shirt with the iron before ironing on the design. I’m hopeful that my next transferring project will turn out much better.
By Mariah Farmer

Is there a library you follow on social media who is always doing new and exciting things? How about a blog you follow that inspires you? What about a new idea, book, or resource that you want to share? Library Crush Corner is a place for those working in Idaho libraries to share what inspires them, and who or what they’re crushing on… in a professional sense. Share your story via our online form so we can publish it in a future issue!

Crush Corner

I totally have a crush on the Milwaukee Public Library on TikTok (and Instagram)! They have been creating great content for the video sharing social media platform that’s reaching millions of users. https://www.tiktok.com/@milwaukeepubliclibrary & https://www.instagram.com/milwaukeepubliclibrary/ 

By Annie Gaines

SPLAT explores the ever-evolving library world and supports library folks as they adapt to meet the needs of their communities. Library folk throughout the state of Idaho volunteer to serve on the Special Projects Library Action Team (SPLAT). Learn more about SPLAT at https://libraries.idaho.gov/splat/ 

SPLAT is brought to you by the Idaho Commission for Libraries and was made possible, in part, by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (LS-246156-OLS-20). The views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Institute of Museum and Library Services.