Harper Collins recently released a new library ebook policy in which the licenses to its content expire after 26 uses, forcing libraries to purchase them again. This represents a very dangerous trend affecting the very role of the library, and underscores a need for library and information science professionals to take a stand against competing information organizations that seize power and control.
To place this development into an LIS context, Pawley gives of examples in the digital era of commodification of information negatively impacting libraries, calling their relationship with commercial publishers an “unequal partnership” (8809). Vaidhyanathan explains the need for a new field, Critical Information Studies, which urges an increased study of “the relationship among information control (and) property rights” and “the cultural, social and economic ramifications” of flows of information (302). Abbott, on the other hand, makes a more gripping comparison by presenting the situation in terms of an ecological battle for survival, arguing that libraries are in direct competition with other professions and must continue to adapt to a shifting information environment so as not to fall victim to its predators. This idea can be directly applied to the Harper Collins ebook case, as it transforms libraries from an institution that owns the content it provides to one that is merely leasing it from another company that retains all the power.
This type of change has already occurred with proprietary article databases, as libraries typically pay for access instead of purchasing full rights to individually selected titles. With ebooks, the implications of this loss of ownership are even more significant. Most library policies, as well as the fundamental ALA Bill of Rights, are written under the assumption that libraries will have continuing access to and control over the items that they provide. But as we have seen with ebooks-for-lease models, this is not the case, both in terms of the duration of ownership and even whether the items will continue to be available at all. Owners reserve the right to remove them at any time, as was the case in 2009 when all copies of two George Orwell books were removed from all Kindles without the knowledge of those who had “purchased” the item (Stone). How can libraries stay true to their foundational value of ensuring continued access to knowledge for all patrons when they cannot ensure that the items provided today will still be available tomorrow? Asheim argues that librarians have an ethical duty to fight censorship and fight against the removal of materials, but the ebook case complicates the argument by raising this new form of digital censorship in which materials can be removed by other parties who represent different values, all because libraries do not control the delivery platform.
The 26 checkout issue also raises other important concerns. For example, how could a library enter such an item into its OPAC and provide real-time item status as each ebook nears its expiration. It is true that print books do not stay in readable condition forever, but libraries have always had the power to utilize its resources for preservation and conservation in order to get the most value out of its investments. There is no such comparison in the digital world, and the fact that the arbitrary number of 26 was thought up by pricing consultants without any dialogue with libraries or reading communities is a disturbing fact, and a trend which will likely continue.
Returning to Abbot’s desires for libraries to adapt in order to challenge its “predators,” the library community is banding together to fight Harper Collins. A petition launched by a New Jersey librarian opposing the policy had collected over 58,000 signatures as of May 5, 2011 (Library Journal). Such movements from the library community will be crucial in the coming years as other companies try to protect their financial interests at the expense of the public. Interestingly, Abbott himself predicted just this over a decade ago:
The central challenges (for libraries) lie in embracing the various information technologies of the future and the groups that service them. This embrace will end up redefining the profession. But that is necessary to survival.
References
Abbott, Andrew. “Professionalism and the Future of Librarianship.” Library Trends 46.3 (1998): 430-443.
Asheim, Lester. “Selection and Censorship: A Reappraisal” Wilson Library Bulletin 58.3 (1983): 180-84.
Kelley, Michael. “Petition Protesting HarperCollins’s Ebook Circulation Policy Takes Off.” Library Journal. 5 May 2011. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/home/890502-264/petition_protesting_harpercollinss_ebook_circulation.html.csp
Pawley, Christine. “Libraries.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, 2001.
Stone, Brad. “Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle.” New York Times. 17 July 2009. 12 May 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. “Afterword: Critical Information Studies.” Cultural Studies 20.2 (2006): 292-315.