Hundreds Of Authors Ask Publishers To Stop Attacking Libraries
from the save-the-libraries dept
We keep pointing out that publishers hate libraries. Oh, they’ll pretend otherwise, and make broad platitudes about libraries and the good of society. But, it’s clear in how they act that they think of libraries as dens of piracy. They’re now using the ebook revolution as a chance to harm, or even wipe out, libraries. The biggest battle on this front is the big publishers’ lawsuit against the Internet Archive.
Now, hundreds of authors have signed onto a letter put together by Fight for the Future in support of libraries and asking the publishers to back off.
Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the Association of American Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians.
We urge all who are engaged in the work of getting books into the hands of readers to act in the interests of all authors, including the long-marginalized, midlist, and emerging authors whom librarians have championed for decades.
This is important, because like with the RIAA claiming to represent musicians (rather than the labels they actually represent), the publishers always frame their attacks on libraries as if it’s about protecting authors’ interests. And here are tons of authors, including some very big names like Neil Gaiman, saying that the publishers need to not just stop going after libraries, but especially that they need to stop doing so in the name of authors.
The letter has three asks, all of which I think are important and which I’ll quote fully here:
- Enshrine the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format. Many libraries would prefer to own and preserve digital editions, as they have always done with print books, but these days publishers rarely offer them the option. Instead, when libraries have access to ebooks at all, the prices libraries pay to rent ebooks are often likened to extortion.
Digital editions are more affordable to produce and often more accessible, but libraries are already relying on emergency funds and may only be able to license a small selection of mainstream works in the future. In turn, readers will have fewer opportunities to discover the more diverse potential bestsellers of tomorrow.
It is past time to determine a path forward that is fair to both libraries and authors—including a perpetual model for digital ownership based on the cost to maintain a print edition.
- End lawsuits aimed at intimidating libraries and diminishing their role in society. The interests of libraries are the interests of the public, and of any author concerned with equity and longevity for themselves and their fellow writers. We are all on the same side. Yet a unanimously passed Maryland state law ensuring libraries pay “reasonable fees” for digital editions died after the AAP sued. And after a previous suit failed, several publishers are currently suing the Internet Archive Library in an attempt to prohibit all libraries from lending out scanned copies of books they own. While undermining libraries may financially benefit the wealthiest and most privileged authors and corporations in the short term, this behavior is utterly opposed to the interests of authors as a whole.
- End smear campaigns against librarians. Recent comments likening library advocates to “mouthpieces” for Big Tech are as tasteless as they are inaccurate. Also concerning are the awards recently given to legislators who have advocated in favor of the dangerous surveillance of library patrons, and of laws that criminalize librarians. As a last bastion of truth, privacy, and access to diverse voices, libraries’ digital operations grow ever more essential to our society—and their work should be celebrated, not censured.
Many of the authors were so vocal about this issue, that they didn’t just sign the letter, but provided further quotes of support as well.
The real question then, is why the publishers are continuing this never ending attack on libraries. One hopes that journalists will be asking the heads of the big publishers, as well as the boss of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), (former Copyright Office boss) Maria Pallante, why they continue to drive forward with these anti-author, anti-library attacks.
Filed Under: authors, ebooks, lawsuits, libraries
Companies: aap
Comments on “Hundreds Of Authors Ask Publishers To Stop Attacking Libraries”
Conversation with a friend…
There’s a lot I’ve already said about the Publishers’ infuriating lawsuit against the Internet Archive, but I think this should be known: I know somebody who used to write copy at Penguin Random House. Once I notified him of the lawsuit, he said that the massive conglomerate-owned publishers were “struggling to stay afloat” and:
which I think is exactly right. These are publicly-traded businesses with bottom lines and shareholders to satisfy. Suing anything that would disrupt it (for example, Libraries such as the Internet Archive) is part and parcel of maximizing their bottom line. The Authors, however, have no such qualms. They’re just trying to put food on their table. Libraries are most likely the place where they were inspired to become authors themselves. That’s why all these authors are so outraged at what their publishers are doing.
I’m really happy they’re speaking out against the injustice the publishers are wreaking on the literary public, and what we need are more people doing so. I believe that the Internet Archive needs to be preserved so much that I changed my donations to a monthly stipend; hopefully the Archive will be able to survive; civilization itself depends on it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“Outraged”, really? Has any author even talked about leaving a publisher over this? In the linked letter, they “write to ask” the publishers to do a few minor things. They’re not demanding anything, nor threatening anything, which to me suggests authors are merely trying to get readers to look at them more favorably. “Don’t blame us, it’s all the fault of our publishers!” (whom we voluntarily associate ourselves with).
Why would a publisher see the letter as anything else? Is there even a non-evil competitor that authors could defect to?
Re: Re:
At least one of the authors–Cory Doctorow–makes sure that all his books are DRM-free and even doesn’t release his audiobook on Audible because it requires DRM despite them having 90% market share. I would say that that is sticking to principles.
Re: Re: Re:
oops, “audiobook” should be “audiobooks”–plural.
Re: Re: Re:
Somewhat. But Cory’s publisher said books couldn’t be published with Creative Commons licenses anymore, so the new books are under fully restrictive copyright. With the same publisher.
Re: Re: Re:2
How so (or rather, how not) ?
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m not sure if it was Cory’s publishers or Cory himself who made the decision to no longer use creative commons licenses (Cory owns the audio rights to his books and still uses the default all-rights-reserved paradigm. See here). Besides, it no longer makes financial sense to use creative commons licenses for when Cory used them: Doctorow used those licenses to entice people to pay for the paper versions. However, now that the electronic versions are the best-selling versions, licensing the books with creative commons would defeat that purpose. I realize that–as I said–he wouldn’t budge on DRM, but I believe that’s the line he’s drawn.
On a side note, one time, I suggested to him to donate his works to the public domain upon his death, and while he was keen on the idea, he ultimately told me “I’ll have to ask my family and my publisher.” He has stakeholders that would stand to lose if he did that, and I respect his wishes (The reason I have decided to dedicate my works to the public domain is because I have no spouse, no children, nor any middleman such as a label or publisher to risk loss should I waive all my copyright upon my death).
Re: Re: Re:3
In other words, he believes in the expanded view of copyright where copyrights get passed on from the original author to their relatives, and/or a business?
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s an interesting way of saying Cory cares about his family and his business partners who have been good to him.
Re: Re: Re:5
Maybe so, but it still means that he thinks copyrights should get gifted to people who had nothing to do with creating the works in question, and that copyrights should survive after the death of the original author.
Both these ideas are part of the expansion of copyright that this site regularly points to as a problem with today’s copyright system, and a threat to the public domain.
Re: Re: Re:3 UPDATE:
Cory explains that licensing his books with CC licenses “became a calling card” and when the sales for ebooks eventually took over sales for paper, Macmillan told him to stop. So I was right and you were right:
Keep in mind that Macmillan is not one of the parties suing the internet archive, and that all Tor books are DRM-free, so they don’t deserve your, my, or anyone else who cares about libraries’ ire.
Re: Re: Re:4
> Keep in mind that Macmillan is not one of the parties suing the internet archive, and that all Tor books are DRM-free, so they don’t deserve your, my, or anyone else who cares about libraries’ ire.
That might have something to do with librarians petitioning Macmillan about this and the COVID pandemic starting during that petition.
However, while they might not be a party here… if you look at their academic subsidiaries, Macmillan is still chilly to ‘piracy’, aka libraries on the Internets.
Re: Re:
Only if they want to abandon their existing works. They cannot take works published through their existing publisher with them, and can do nothing for 30 years when they are removed from the market.
Re: Re:
“Has any author even talked about leaving a publisher over this?”
Leaving a publisher does not necessarily mean that the publisher can’t keep control of works already published.
Re:
Is that why they have coagulated all the smaller publishers into a few big ones, or does it operate in reverse? – because there are so few publishers, people struggle to find a publisher for anything new, so less people buy books so …
Re: Re:
As a niche author, I found that there are a stunning amount of independent publishers that publish fiction in those niches. Hopefully they don’t become conglomerated as well, considering how much smaller their reach is; I’d like have them as options to submit novels and anthologies to if I decide that’s a better route than the forms of digital self-publishing I’ve been looking at, or simply not publishing even when I feel like I have something worth printing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Libraries: stop attacking the public
This is rather glossing over the way that libraries are attacking the public: by pushing DRM on their patrons (“controlled digital lending”), and helping to normalize and even legally mandate it. Libraries lend digital music on non-DRMed CDs that can be easily copied, but, surprise!: music still exists. There’s no good reason why books should be different.
It’s hard for me to be on their side when they’ve already sold us out, mostly without admitting it or doing anything to reverse it.
Re:
You do realize that the only way the library can get those ebooks to lend out is to agree to the drm method of choice made by the publisher, right?
Re:
There is so much wrong with this I don’t know where to start…
– Publishers license books to the library
– DRM is part of the license from the publisher
– Libraries can only lend the book out to the number of people for which they have licenses… 2 licenses, only two copies out at a time
– From the Libraries side, DRM limits the length of time a patron “has” the book. Once the time limit ends the book is technically “returned” to the library and can be lent to another patron.
Please go back and look at who is insisting on DRM. Without that there is no way in hell any publisher would sell a library the license for the eBook.
Re: Re:
And after a certain period the digital license expires so that publishers can increase the cost and sell it to the library again.
Re: Re:
I think you’re missing the point. Sure, the publisher said the libraries had to screw over their clients. The libraries agreed, and don’t even seem to be talking about it. Maybe I’d have some sympathy if they’d said yes, grudingly and temporarily, and started some anti-DRM activism and lobbying. Instead, they advertise this as just a normal thing—and they’re telling courts that DRM makes what libraries are doing OK, which is basically pro-DRM lobbying and likely to entrench it further.
That’s exactly right. Similarly, when libraries started, no publisher would sell them a license to lend the books. When VHS tapes and CDs and DVDs came about, no publisher would give anyone a license to lend or rent them. Luckily, in the USA, they didn’t need a license, and now it would seem unthinkable. Libraries and the public got to decide what was normal here, not the publishers.
I strongly suspect we’d have been better off had libraries said no to the publishers’ terms and lobbied the government for proper library rights. E.g., to break the DRM, put the book on a USB stick, and lend the USB stick under first sale.
Re: Victim blaming, much?
Perhaps you neglected to read the article?
Libraries don’t like DRM any better than the rest of us. Libraries and librarians are firmly opposed to DRM’d books… both on philosophical grounds, and because DRM makes it more difficult and more expensive for public libraries to serve the public.
Public libraries have been engaged in a long, ongoing fight with publishers about these matters, and are striving to defend the public interest.
Libraries also have a lot of patrons who don’t understand the issues, and simply expect to be able to borrow books, whether printed with ink or with electrons.
Authors on the other hand, follow such matters more closely, and are speaking out on the issues. Hence this campaign and this article — in which authors are supporting public libraries and the public interest, and defending public libraries in their fight against the publishing industry.
Blaming the public libraries for this mess, is about as dumb as blaming Ukraine for shortages of wheat and natural gas.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The libraries (and maybe authors) are victims of the publishers, and the patrons are victims of the libraries. Neither step is OK. In the article, the authors condemn the desire of the publishers to “[block] a practice called controlled digital lending” (read: “DRM”). They are not condemning the DRM itself, and are basically saying it’s DRM that makes libraries OK.
Is there a significant group of librarians warning their patrons about DRM, and telling lawmakers it’s not OK?
Re:
Just going to leave out that (a) libraries don’t make those policies, they come from publishers, and libraries don’t actually want DRM, and (b) libraries are free? Like, free-free? Like, one of the few direct, unconditional benefits that taxpayers get for their money in this country, and yet you’re accusing them of “selling us out,” which is the exact opposite of what libraries actually do?
Re: Re:
No, like taxpayer-funded as your next sentence says. Our tax money is being used to fund DRM. This is not OK. Doesn’t matter that it was not the library’s idea initially. There’s little evidence they’re opposed to the DRM—now they’re just haggling over the details.
Compare this to what happened with the Patriot Act. That was an actual government law with jailtime, not an optional private agreement, and there were librarians who said they’d go to jail rather than give up people’s private library records. And they reorganized their systems so as not to store unnecessary data.
Where are the librarians warning people about “borrowing” e-books, even if their library allows it? From what I’ve seen, they’re mostly saying how it’s convenient because one doesn’t have to travel to the library. They could’ve said “fuck DRM”—or at least “we discourage this service”—and offered to mail books for free till the lawmakers sorted this shit out. Stood together, as in the SOPA fight, till the citizens made them listen.
Re: Re: Re:
Let me say it again, even though a dozen other commenters already have: DRM is a condition to the deals publishers have with libraries. It’s not some evil librarian initiative. The fact that DRM often comes with ebook loans because of the publishers doesn’t mean our tax dollars are “funding DRM” except in a vague, obtuse sense. The alternative is to either renegotiate the licensing deals (with what leverage?) or to not offer ebooks at all (net negative result). Please provide your plan for convincing the private sector to sell ebook licenses to libraries without requiring artificial scarcity.
And frankly, I think you’re vastly overestimating (a) the harm caused here and (b) how much the average person actually cares. Libraries provide a valuable public good. Remember: you’re attacking libraries on a post about publishers trying to sue libraries out of existence because of digital book distribution. Your implication re: taxes seems to be that because libraries use DRM, we shouldn’t fund libraries, and do you know how much that would damage learning and knowledge in this country? Please correct me if this is not your meaning.
Re: Re: Re:2 Why do...
Why do so many people assume libraries are tax-funded?
While that’s often the case, many libraries are funded by endowments and donations, especially in places where the library remained in operation after local governments couldn’t or wouldn’t fund it anymore. Many libraries also collect fines for upkeep and replacement costs (you ruin a book, fair to ask you pay for a new one if you can).
Libraries are places their patrons see as necessary regardless of whether or not members of the community can or will pay taxes for them; the services that libraries provide are essential to communities in our perspective.
Re: Re: Re:
“Our tax money is being used to fund DRM”
What’s your alternative? Publishers own the titles. They have the freedom to set conditions. If their conditions include DRM, rightly or wrongly, the library cannot force them to provide them to with a non-DRM copy.
“Compare this to what happened with the Patriot Act. That was an actual government law with jailtime, not an optional private agreement, and there were librarians who said they’d go to jail rather than give up people’s private library records”
Complete non-sequitur. In that example, the libraries owned the records. In the case of books, the publishers own the books. Librarians cannot force publishers to provide them with something the publishers don’t want to supply.
“They could’ve said “fuck DRM””
They could. They’d have been left with way less books to lend to people, which would lead to way less people using the library.
“and offered to mail books for free till the lawmakers sorted this shit out”
How? Sending digital copies is expressly illegal if they don’t have an agreement with the publisher. Sending a physical copy would be very expensive and unsustainable. How do you suggest that libraries send people copies of books against the agreements they have with the people who own the books?
I agree that DRM is very dumb and causes way more problems than just accepting a certain level of piracy and adjusting business models accordingly. But, it’s not exactly the fault of libraries that they won’t set themselves up as a piracy hub.
Re:
So you’re going with “wet streets cause rain” then.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
How cute! The fleas are asking the rottweiler to let go of the steak.
This is essentially a modern-day form of book burning.
Re:
I would go even further and argue it’s the modern-day equivalent to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
Re: Re:
Ignoring the egregrious historical error that is happening…
This is closer to the Stationer’s Company Act than the Burning of the Library of Alexandria.
I’ll explain the egregrious historical error when I manage to get access to my desktop. It’s gonna need me to start rereading some extremely good articles on the issue…
Pysical copies of books tend to circulate roughly a dozen times before they need to be replaced.
That doesn’t at all mean there’s any rational sense in putting an arbitrary expiration date on a digital copy, though.
Re:
I don’t know what library you are using but my grubby stocks is 40 issues before we take them off. (Unless someone does something ‘unsanitary’ to them in the meantime)
I think the AC further up wants all libraries to cut off their nose to spite their face – just not have ebooks at all until someone ‘does something’ I can assure you that the ALA puts a lot of effort into lobbying over ebooks (from what I read – I’m in the UK. Over here I can’t even buy hachette ebooks for my library, they refuse to sell us them under any licence)
Re: Re:
And if they think the book is worth the trouble, some libraries will even rebind a worn book and lend it some more (or maybe even move it to the reference section).