“Decades after the recording industry decided, however grudgingly, to accept people ripping CDs into digital-music files, librarians have yet to get an equivalent signature on a permission slip to do the same with books.
But the continued plagues of online disinformation and pandemic-forced closings or cutbacks of library services may breathe more life into a concept called Controlled Digital Lending.
“CDL” is not a format but a framework: After they scan one copy of printed book, libraries can loan one digital copy at a time, using digital-rights-management software to impede readers from duplicating it. …”
“Scholar, writer, editor, content developer, and publishing and library consultant, Mirela Roncevic talks about the long journey of open access and open science, how to pay for scholarly monographs, and the complex challenges of e-book lending.”
“In September 2021, the CDL Co-Op, a group of librarians and information professionals working on issues of resource sharing, interlibrary loan, and controlled digital lending, announced its Statement on Using Controlled Digital Lending as a Mechanism for Interlibrary Loan, available at controlleddigitallending.org/illstatement. Developed with deep community input, the Statement’s introduction provides context for library use of controlled digital lending (a modern method for libraries to loan digitized items from their print collection to their patrons in a “lend like print” fashion) as a mechanism for Interlibrary Loan. By situating it within the purpose of libraries and the ways they serve their communities and society, the introduction lays the foundation for 10 brief statements that define and affirm the use of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) in library and interlibrary loan (ILL) contexts.
The Statement was developed by the CDL Co-op during 2020 and 2021 in response to community need, and in conjunction with broad library community conversation and feedback. This approach to the development of the Statement increased awareness of controlled digital lending (CDL) in the context of interlibrary loan among librarians and library staff, and also provides an opportunity to improve the services provided by the library resource sharing community by ensuring libraries and consortia are operating from a shared set of assumptions and principles….”
Yhis briefing paper created by the Jisc Learning Content Group provides an overview of the current e-textbook licensing landscape within higher education institutions. It outlines current practices and their impact on the library and suggests ways in which the sector can exert influence on publishers to change their pricing and access models
“??Last month, Library Futures Foundation released a new policy document, “Controlled Digital Lending: Unlocking the Library’s Full Potential.”
Library Futures Foundation developed this document in consultation with the Intellectual Property and Information Policy (iPIP) Clinic at Georgetown Law. The document covers all the benefits, innovations, and goals that are the basis of any controlled digital lending system and makes the crucial connection between CDL and issues of equity. It expands beyond the legal rationale laid out in the Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) White Paper by clarifying the core principles that are the foundations of a library’s mission to provide access to materials to serve the public good.
This session will provide an opportunity to hear from the authors of the policy document, to engage in a virtual discussion, and to give your feedback on how this document may be useful to your community.”
“While some have been thinking about issues around Controlled Digital Lending for many years, there is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has shifted the way we view the digital. The shutting of university buildings suddenly cut off access to physical copies for a prolonged period of time (most notably in the UK during our first lock-down last year). This lack of physical access shone a powerful spotlight on the compromises that we had been living with in terms of the balance between physical and electronic texts. Pre-pandemic we had rather muddled-through, aware of the problems caused by unsatisfactory and unaffordable business models and terms and conditions that limited use and reuse, but not seeing a clear way through.
The pandemic engendered a shift in the way in which we think about CDL. It begun a move from CDL being seen as a rather theoretical and esoteric topic – discussed and debated mainly by copyright specialists – to increasingly being viewed as a potentially key tool that allows librarians to connect information with readers. We can see this move in at least three areas:
Firstly, there are an increasing number of high-level statements and resources in support of CDL. An example of the former is the strong statement of support for CDL issued this summer by IFLA. And of the latter is the work from the US of the Library Futures Foundation and their Controlled Digital Lending: Unlocking the Library’s Full Potential.
Secondly, there have been technological changes. It is only one example, but I note the news last month from ExLibris of the release of a new tool as part of Alma to enable CDL and to view physical and digital holdings as part of the same collections and not separate.
And thirdly, CDL works and is seen to work. On a large scale, at the start of the pandemic the Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library proved to be hugely valuable. As was the Hathi Trust Emergency Library, which was widely used – mainly in the US, but also by at least one UK HE institution. This fortifies the shift in thinking about CDL from a theoretical ‘nice-to-have’ to a concrete tool….”
“In a potentially significant development, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D-California) this week presented a wide-ranging set of questions to the Big Five publishers regarding their practices in the library e-book market.
In their letter to the publishers the lawmakers reference “the exorbitant costs and burdensome restrictions” that they contend “are draining resources from many local libraries,” and “forcing [libraries] to make difficult choices to try and provide a consistent level of service” to their communities.”
“I read more books in 2020 than I had in years. I was not the only one; last year, more than a hundred library systems checked out a million or more books each from OverDrive’s catalogue, and the company reported a staggering four hundred and thirty million checkouts, up a third from the year before. (Barnes & Noble, which has more retail locations than any other bookseller in the U.S., has said that it sells about a hundred and fifty-five million print books a year.) The burst in digital borrowing has helped many readers, but it has also accelerated an unsettling trend. Books, like music and movies and TV shows, are increasingly something that libraries and readers do not own but, rather, access temporarily, from corporations that do….
In 2011, HarperCollins introduced a new lending model that was capped at twenty-six checkouts, after which a library would need to purchase the book again. Publishers soon introduced other variations, from two-year licenses to copies that multiple readers could use at one time, which boosted their revenue and allowed libraries to buy different kinds of books in different ways. For a classic work, which readers were likely to check out steadily for years to come, a library might purchase a handful of expensive perpetual licenses. With a flashy best-seller, which could be expected to lose steam over time, the library might buy a large number of cheaper licenses that would expire relatively quickly. …
The high prices of e-book rights could become untenable for libraries in the long run, according to several librarians and advocates I spoke to—libraries, venders, and publishers will probably need to negotiate a new way forward. “It’s not a good system,” Inouye said. “There needs to be some kind of change in the law, to reinstate public rights that we have for analog materials.” Maria Bustillos, a founding editor of the publishing coöperative Brick House, argued recently in The Nation that libraries should pay just once for each copy of an e-book. …”
“We are very excited today to announce the release of the Library Futures Foundation’s (LFF) new policy document “Controlled Digital Lending: Unlocking the Library’s Full Potential.” As outlined, controlled digital lending maximizes a library’s ability to loan works, thereby making the entire loaning system more efficient and equitable.
Library Futures Foundation developed this document in consultation with the Intellectual Property and Information Policy (iPIP) Clinic at Georgetown Law. This concise policy document covers all the benefits, innovations, and goals that are the basis of any controlled digital lending system. It expands beyond the legal rationale laid out in the Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) White Paper by clarifying the core principles that are the foundations of a library’s mission to provide access to materials to serve the public good. …”
“Controlled digital lending works exactly as the name implies: it is a controlled, digital form of the traditional library lending system. Under CDL, libraries generally lend digitized versions of print materials from their collections, strictly limiting them to a single digital copy per physical copy owned—a one-to-one “owned-to-loaned” ratio. If a library owns two physical copies of The Giving Tree, it only loans out two copies at any time, whether physically or digitally. This maintains the same limits as traditional book lending but enables access digitally. Digital access is especially important for those who live or work far from their closest library or whose work, childcare, or school schedules make physical access during business hours challenging. Communities rely on libraries to serve as a hub for education and knowledge. CDL (1) drives economic efficiency by maximizing returns on tax dollars, (2) expands reliable and equitable education, (3) promotes civil rights for marginalized communities, and (4) improves access through digitization. Congress should support their communities by empowering libraries to serve as a meaningful access point for these publicly funded collections by: ? Supporting legislation that codifies the practice of CDL by libraries.2 ? Encouraging funding through grant programs and other incentives to facilitate CDL. ? Promoting the development of a federal, centralized set of digital materials for use in CDL programs….”
“In the debates around controlled digital lending (“CDL”), much has been said about whether and how CDL affects author incomes. Recently, the Internet Archive requested 10 years of sales data during the discovery phase of its ongoing lawsuit with several large publishers, seeking to support its argument that its digitization projects did not negatively impact book sales. As an authors’ group that represents the interests of authors who care deeply about their works reaching broad audiences, Authors Alliance is a unique voice in the conversation around the impact of different types of library lending on authors’ livelihoods. In today’s post, we will discuss the intersections between author income, traditional library lending, and CDL. …”
“On Tuesday 14th September from 2-3.30pm we will be hosting a jointly run webinar with the National Acquisitions Group and ALT Copyright and Online Learning SIG. It brings together experts in the field of copyright, library leadership and collections management to discuss the latest developments in providing digital access to published content for library users under UK copyright law.
Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) has been receiving attention throughout the library and publishing communities as a potential remedy to the restrictive ebook licensing practices operated by some publishers. Libraries argue that these licensing practices undermine the balance between private interests and public access that have long been part of copyright laws, and limit the way library users get access to information and culture. CDL proposes that as long as libraries legitimately acquire physical copies of collection items, it is legal to digitise and provide access to users on a 1:1 “owned to loaned” ratio. CDL is gaining traction in the US and Canada, and IFLA has recently released a statement identifying its potential across the world….”
“Plaintiffs have produced a vast wealth of detailed sales and related financial data concerning the Works in Suit, totaling over 670,000 rows of data in Excel. Now, after the close of document discovery and on the eve of depositions, IA seeks to compel the production of “commercial performance data,” broken down by month, distribution channel, price and income, for all other books published by the Plaintiffs since 2011 – an undertaking that would involve a massive amount of data concerning more than 500,000 titles. And IA makes this extraordinary demand in order to rifle through an enormous reservoir of highly proprietary data concerning books that are not the Works in Suit, all in an effort to somehow select “for each work in suit, one or more comparable books that were not available for digital lending” on IA’s system. Dkt. 47, 2. In other words, because the significant financial data already provided concerning the Works in Suit apparently does not support IA’s theory on market harm, IA wants access to millions of data points concerning Plaintiffs’ entire book catalogues. IA argues it is entitled to do this in order to see if any evidence might exist to support the inherently incredible theory that copying entire books and distributing them to any member of the public worldwide upon demand does not compete with Plaintiffs’ sales of the same books. Even worse, IA’s quest rests on the palpably false theory that it can quantify the harm caused by its infringement by comparing the sales of completely different books. Books are not interchangeable widgets and marketplace performance is driven by countless indeterminate and changing facts. In short, Defendant’s letter motion should be denied because the enormous and costly burden to Plaintiffs far outweighs the negligible value (if any) of the evidence sought, especially given the lack of legally relevant results that it will yield and the delays it will cause to the case….”
“Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 37.2, Defendant Internet Archive respectfully requests a pre-motion discovery conference regarding a motion to compel the production of information regarding the commercial performance of books published by Plaintiffs. In the above-captioned lawsuit, Plaintiffs contend that the Internet Archive infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights by the non-profit digital lending of library books. The Internet Archive maintains that the challenged lending constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. In considering fair use, one factor courts consider is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” Plaintiffs claim that the Internet Archive’s digital library lending has a negative effect on the market for or value of the works. The Internet Archive disagrees, and wishes to bring forward evidence showing that lending had little or no effect on the commercial performance of the books being lent, compared to books that were not lent….”